Formation of UNESCO World Heritage List

UNESCO World Heritage Sites have been deeply impacted by Environmental change as well as local and national initiatives in the region. This assignment will discuss the impact that climate change, local and governmental building plans and other factors such as human intervention on World Heritage sites. The Assignment will discuss the history of World Heritage, the development of ideology behind ‘endangered’ heritage sites and the laws and recommendations from UNESCO for the preservation of these sites. The paper will focus on Maritime Mercantile City as the prime example of the complications of modern urban development in the preservation of World Heritage sites. The paper will also discuss a few cases of delisting of Heritage sites from the World Heritage Site list as well. The aim of the paper is to elaborate on the preservation of World Heritage sites by UNESCO in the modern world and the environmental limitations of the process (Center, 2018).

With the formation of the United Nations, the world became more aware of its history. Many sites around the world were considered a gift, not only to the nation they belonged to; but the whole world. That is why; in 1965 White House conference presented the idea of a “World Heritage Trust”. Its aims are famously preserved in history as; “the world’s superb natural and scenic areas and historic sites for the present and the future of the entire world citizenry”. The proposal was continued by the “International Union of Conservation of Nature” over time and was eventually proposed to the United Nations Conference on The Human Environment in 1972. On 16th November 1972, the “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage” was taken by the General Assembly of the United Nations. On 17th December 1975, the convention was ratified by 19 countries, with 189 signatories who were a part of the United Nations.

The convention is significant because this is the first pact of its kind that brings natural and cultural heritage preservation together under one inspecting system.

Selection process: The International Council on Monuments and Sites will evaluate the list of chosen from every country and will be advised on the matter by World Conservation Union. The World Heritage Committee meets once a year to decide whether the presented sites obey at least one of the ten selection criteria to choose a World Heritage Site (Cultural tourism, 1993).

There are 1092 World Heritage Sites in 167 states. The highest concentration of World Heritage Sites is in Italy, followed by China, Spain, France and Germany. As China is one of the most highly polluted lands in the world while Italy and Spain are highly Mediterranean lands; the impact that government policies and the environment has on the heritage sites around the world are the reason that UNESCO deemed fit to take clear action for the preservation of its sites.

Selection Process for Designation of World Heritage Sites

International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) has stated in its ‘Tourism Handbook for World Heritage Site Managers’ that “to assist in the proper management of World Heritage Sites, recommended that all countries signatory to the Convention consider introduction of domestic legislation to regulate and control the management of World Heritage Sites within their jurisdiction” (Cultural tourism, 1993). This emphasis on local management of the Heritage sites goes back to the fact that the preservation of heritage sites was to preserve the heritage of mother Earth in that geographical location. Only one out of 19 signatories have enacted proper legislation to preserve the World Heritage Sites in their country. Australia passed the “1983 World Heritage Properties Conservation Act” that is there to preserve the World Heritage Sites that are in their jurisdiction. There are many factors that can affect the World Heritage site located in the country; some of these factors are as follows;

The site is certainly going to incur problems that are easy to foresee, as follows;

• The decay of infrastructure
• The Decay of artifacts
• The change or fading of landscape design
• The fading or change in the natural design of the site that takes away the historical outlook.
• The reduction in original aura
• The deterioration of culturally important features of the site.

The problems that may occur in the national stance on the heritage site or any other local perspectives that causes a threat to the heritage status of the site.

• The reduction in protective measures by the country that holds the site.
• Absent or limited intention to conserve the site.
• The regional or local planning that takes away from the site
• The changes by the local authorities
• The destruction caused by natural disasters such as earth quakes and floods.

 (Centre, 2018)

Many of the World Heritage Sites are in continuous danger of destruction from any of these factors.

The list contains 54 properties from around the world that have deteriorated extensively and are soon in danger of being changed beyond repair or preservation. If that level of deterioration occurs, then the site will no longer be considered a World Heritage Site and will be taken off the list of World Heritage Sites from the UNESCO convention.  Many World Heritage Sites have been stripped of their title by UNESCO due to lack of adherence to the rules and regulations.

Oman’s Arabian Oryx Sanctuary was taken out of the World Heritage Site list in 2007 according to the government’s wishes.

Dresden Elbe Valley in Germany was taken off the list in 2009.

Bagrati Cathedral in Georgia was stripped off its Heritage Status in 2017 after renovations took away its authenticity to a significant degree.

A recent study of the Heritage Impact Assessments conducted by the UNESCO from its inception in 2011 to the year 2016 has to lead to significant findings. The study concludes that a hundred assessments that were conducted in that time needed to be evaluated from the perspectives of local and governmental stakeholders and the local sentiments regarding the process of delisting should also be taken into account. They also emphasized the fact that heritage value of any site is fluid and should be taken while keeping modern truths in mind (Patiwael P, Groote P and Vanclay F, 2018).

Factors Affecting World Heritage Sites

The Liverpool Landing Stage (1893) William F. Preston © NMGM Image

This is one of the most compelling examples of modern development reducing the authenticity of the Heritage site. Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City was established in Liverpool during the British Empire. It was the Centre of trade and is reminiscent of British rule and Western Imperialism. The site has been a pride and joy ever since the ratification of the convention. But in 2012, the construction of Liverpool Waters- renovation of the historic docklands in the North was proposed. The project would alter the Liverpool skyline and interfere with the connectivity and congruence of all the buildings in the original dock. In 2012, the Liverpool management was informed by the World Heritage Committee that if the renovation project is completed, the Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City will be taken off the heritage site list.

 The warning was reiterated in July 2017 as the project continues due to a need for employment and growth opportunities or the city. Here, the study by Patiwael, Groote and Vanclay come to mind in order to elaborate the modern perspective.

 The understanding of modern needs of a local community is the key to understanding any stakeholders in a World Heritage Site preservation effort as that will decide the fate of the World Heritage Site list .The renovation efforts are to vitalize the city using leftover spaces between the dockyards that are not in use. 750 million Euros have been invested in the maintenance of the Heritage Site considering that the site is massive and its preservation through the years was a challenging task. However, UNESCO has forewarned the Mayor of Liverpool that if Liverpool waters project is not abandoned, then the Maritime Mercantile City will be stripped of its World Heritage Site List in as early as 2018. The action is similar to the stripping of Dresden Elbe Valley of its World Heritage Site title because a four-way bridge was built into the city against expressed wishes of the World Heritage Site committee. The decision to build the bridge came due to the need to reduce traffic congestion. It could have been taken without any interference, as a minor change by UNESCO but the preservation committee showed intense interest in preserving the original site. These guidelines are coming out as narrow and hard to comply with on many fronts (Anon, 2018).

Many areas in the World Heritage Sites list come from Arab or Asian countries that are ridden with war and religious strife. The heritage that will be most missed by the world is that of Syria. Syria is the cradle of human culture; the heritage of mankind was born in this land. The one city hosted some of the most celebrated and now most mourned heritage sites in the world.

Delisted Heritage Sites

Syria lost almost half a million human lives in the past five years according to the United Nations. As much as the loss of human life is the greatest loss; Syria hosted its World Heritage sites that are all, now, lost. Some were destroyed in the bombing while others were deliberately plumaged by the terrorist attack. Palmyra’s Arch of Triumph is a celebrated 2000-year-old heritage site; it was deliberately destroyed by terrorist.

 The ancient city of Basra, a hub of Islamic heritage, was also greatly diminished in the war along with ‘Crac des Chevaliers’- a medieval castle of great significance was both destroyed. The cities of Damascus and Aleppo are both ruined and cannot be restored to their former historical grandeur (Anon, 2018).  As these are all acts of deliberate violence and strife; that have left these sites completely unrecognizable. These sites are lost to the worst of humanity; the bitter geopolitical strife that comes with regional unrest. Similar cases can be observed in Afghanistan where the Persian Empire was most significantly preserved. But with the invasion of the Taliban, the looting of Afghan heritage began that continued for two decades. Virtually no archaeological site is left in that area to preserve and appreciate (Hammer et al., 2018). Again, the world was not given any choice whatsoever in playing any role in the preservation of the Heritage site.

The climate change also plays a significant role in deciding the fate of World Heritage sites. In Australia, the Great Barrier Reef is considered the most iconic Australian treasure. The Reef is worth $42 Billion and is responsible for 64000 jobs in Australia. It is also massively affected by the recent climate change with two-thirds of the reef dying out due to recent bleaching. “This is the largest living structure on earth and world’s most complex and diverse natural ecosystem”; according to Great Barrier Reef Foundation director Steve Sargent.

Australia recently conducted 400,000 dollars’ worth of lobbying to make sure that the Reef was not placed in the ‘Dangered’ list by the World Heritage Sites committee. UNESCO made the decision after viewing Australia’s Reef 2050 Plan that is seen by many as impractical.

As this is the most significant World Heritage Site that was impacted by climate change; it was the best perspective to begin a discussion.

A study published this month has come up with significant new insights into climate change and its impact on the World Heritage Sites in the Mediterranean region (Reimann et al., 2018). 49 of UNESCO’s World Heritage sites are located in the coastal regions of the Mediterranean Sea including Turkey and Italy. Forty-Seven of these sites are in direct danger of submersion in 2100 because the chances of flooding in this region will increase fifty per cent by that time.

Impact of Modern Development on Heritage Sites

In the light of all of these factors, the present-day efforts of World Heritage Site preservations are greatly challenged by natural as well as man-made calamities. Between intense warring regions hosting some of the most treasured heritage sites with irreplaceable value and the most iconic heritage sites of Italy expected to not survive the end of this century; UNESCO’s World Heritage Sites preservation committee has challenging times ahead.

Perhaps the committee should heed the modern research community and lower its standards of preservation in Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) guidelines. Perhaps now is not the time to exclude the well preserved and locally celebrated cites such as Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City and the Dresden Elbe Valley for minor modifications that come with the age of modernity.

According to the report which was released recently by the United Nations Environment and UNESCO, the change in the environment has become one of the greatest risk affecting the world heritage sites. Some of the world heritage sites have been associated with certain elements such as rising temperature, longer wildfire seasons, droughts, melting glaciers, intensifying weather events, and rising seas among others. There are a variety of factors which have been considered to be some of the major causes of environmental change in the world heritage sites. The factors include;

There are numerous cases which have been reported relating to the different human activities in the world heritage sites which have typically resulted in a change in the environment. Some of the human activities which have impacted greatly on the environment entail, logging, roadworks, mining, urban development and railway construction among others. The clearing of the forests located in the world heritage sites for instance for purposes such as timber and agriculture has resulted in wiping off of the tree cover and this has also led to the environmental change in the world heritage sites (Jaafar, Noor, and Rasoolimanesh, 2015 p.160).

 An assessment by UNESCO indicated that there are over 203 world’s heritage sites which have already been affected by such human activities. Also, it has been established that there has been a lot of increased pressure from human beings which has resulted in forest loss in most of the forested natural world heritage sites. Such an aspect has typically impacted adversely the outstanding value of the world heritage sites.

The rising population is the other cause of the environmental change in the world heritage sites. The natural sites have been exposed to a certain level of threats by the population pressure and this is mostly in the Asia-Pacific region (Jaafar et al.2015 p.160).  .According to the recent report which was released by UNESCO, it was found out that the rise in population in the urban centers has grown everywhere and this is particularly in the world heritage sites.

The change in the environment has had a number of implications on the world heritage sites. Some of the effects related to the marine world heritage sites. It has been proved that about seventy of the deep sea corals have been greatly affected by the environmental changes causing a change in the climate. The ocean acidification and the rising temperature are considered to be some of the elements which are likely to affect the deep sea corals. There is also the likely effect of the environmental change associated with the increase in soil moisture which is a result of flooding and such an event could lead to the increase in saline crystallization particularly on the surfaces which have been built. According to Coles et al. (2015 p.10), such surfaces could be damaged resulting into surfaces which are decorated. Also, the increase in the level of humidity due change in the environment could also result in subsidence and ground heave. Further, the change in environment is likely to cause pollution in the world heritage sites.

The other effect would be on the biological events which entail relationships existing between the prey and predator and flowering among others. Additionally, the effect of the environmental change would be on the biodiversity on land. A key world heritage site which is likely to be affected by the environmental change is that of Cape Floral Region Protected Areas located in South Africa (Marzeion and Levermann, 2014 p.034001).

The Great Barrier Reef is located within the coastal part of the Queensland in north eastern Australia. It is has been considered as one of the largest living on earth. Apart from that it can be seen clearly from the outer space. The species of this World Heritage Site include, the sharks, dolphins, turtles, starfish, fish and molluscs. It is one of the best marine areas around the world. However due to changes in the environment, the site has begun to reduce in size. There has been coral bleaching which has been associated with warm temperatures. The Great Barrier Reef has been marked as one of the World Heritage Sites likely to be affected negatively by the environmental changes.

The South Africa’s Cape Floral Region is one of the biodiversity hotspot in the world.It is made up of about 13 areas which are under protection and this is especially in Eastern and Western Cape provinces.Such protected areas are also used in the conservation of biological,evolutionary and ecological porceess which relates to the beautiful fynbos vegetaion.It was listed in the World Heritage Sites List in 2004.Additionally,it has been considered as one of the floral kingdoms of the world and it is typically diverse.Recently,there has been certain chnages in the environemnt which is expected to have a negative effect on the site.The dryer climate has been the main cause of drying vegetation of the site.The Cape Floral Rgeion has therefore been marked as one of the World Heritage Sites which are dangeriously going to be affected by the changes in the environment.

There are several efforts which have been taken by the government through the local authorities to ensure that the effects of the environmental change are mitigated. A key intervention strategy entails, the development of policies by the government aimed at reducing the emissions of carbon related materials in the world heritage sites. Such an action will typically decrease the level of adverse effects on the environment. The other mitigation strategy is communication by different nations all over the world where the world heritage sites are located. The communication is mainly aimed at conveying of knowledge on the effects of environment on the world heritage sites and there has been a UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (Job, Becken and Lane, 2017 p.1700).

After Italy, the most found heritage Sites are in China that is the cradle of Buddhism. With the recent decline in funding for World heritage fund, perhaps UNESCO should reevaluate its priorities (Center; 2018).UNESCO’s efforts for the preservation of the Heritage sites that are going to survive this century are of extreme significance. Now, more than ever, UNESCO should pull itself out of the overt lobbying and political tugs of war and focus its efforts on making sure that all the sites that can be preserved are taken into serious consideration.

Global initiatives should be launched to promote the significance of preservation and awareness on global as well as local level should be enhanced. Insignificant changes in the local landscape should not be allowed to come in the way of historical preservations.

References

Anon, 2017. Gelati Monastery, Georgia, removed from UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger. UNESCO. Available at: https://en.unesco.org/news/gelati-monastery-georgia-removed-unesco-s-list-world-heritage-danger [Accessed November 4, 2018].

Author, N., 2017. Georgia’s medieval Bagrati Cathedral removed from UNESCO cultural heritage list. Georgian Journal. Available at: https://www.georgianjournal.ge/culture/33639-georgias-medieval-bagrati-cathedral-removed-from-unesco-cultural-heritage-list.html [Accessed November 4, 2018].

Centre, U. (2018). Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. [online] Whc.unesco.org. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/  [Accessed 19 Oct. 2018].

Centre, U. (2018). World Heritage Fund. [online] Whc.unesco.org. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-fund/  [Accessed 19 Oct. 2018].

Centre, U. (2018). World Heritage in Danger. [online] Whc.unesco.org. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/158/  [Accessed 18 Oct. 2018].

Centre, U.N.E.S.C.O.W.H., 2004. Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City. Documents – UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1150/documentst / [Accessed November 4, 2018].

Centre, U.N.E.S.C.O.W.H., 2007. Arabian Oryx Sanctuary. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/654  [Accessed November 4, 2018].

Centre, U.N.E.S.C.O.W.H., 2007. Oman’s Arabian Oryx Sanctuary: first site ever to be deleted from UNESCO’s World Heritage List. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/362  [Accessed November 4, 2018].

Centre, U.N.E.S.C.O.W.H., 2009. Dresden Elbe Valley. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1156  [Accessed November 4, 2018].

Centre, U.N.E.S.C.O.W.H., 2009. Dresden is deleted from UNESCO’s World Heritage List. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/522  [Accessed November 4, 2018].

Conolly, K, 2009. The bridge takes Dresden off Unesco world heritage list,

Cultural tourism. (1993). International Council on Monuments & Sites, p.5.

Hammer, E., Seifried, R., Franklin, K. and Lauricella, A. (2018). Remote assessments of the archaeological heritage situation in Afghanistan. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 33, pp.125-144. https://www.academia.edu/36334300/Hammer_E._R._Seifried_K._Franklin_and_A._Lauricella._2018._Remote_Assessments_of_the_Archaeological_Heritage_Situation_in_Afghanistan

Henderson, E, 2016. Syria’s six UNESCO World Heritage Sites all damaged or destroyed during the civil war. Independent, 16 March 2016. 2. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrias-six-unesco-world-heritage-sites-all-damaged-or-destroyed-during-civil-war-a6934026.html

https://www.icomos.org/en/116-english-categories/resources/publications?start=63

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325369279_Improving_heritage_impact_assessment_an_analytical_critique_of_the_ICOMOS_guidelines

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jun/25/dresden-bridge-unesco-heritage-status

Patiwael, P., Groote, P. and Vanclay, F. (2018). Improving heritage impact assessment: an analytical critique of the ICOMOS guidelines. International Journal of Heritage Studies, pp.1-15.

The Guardian, 25 July 2009.

Reimann, L., Vafeidis, A., Brown, S., Hinkel, J. and Tol, R. (2018). Mediterranean UNESCO World Heritage at risk from coastal flooding and erosion due to sea-level rise. Nature Communications, 9(1).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6191433/

Coles, R.G., Rasheed, M.A., McKenzie, L.J., Grech, A., York, P.H., Sheaves, M., McKenna, S. and Bryant, C., 2015. The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area seagrasses: managing this iconic Australian ecosystem resource for the future. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 153, pp.A1-A12.

Jaafar, M., Noor, S.M. and Rasoolimanesh, S.M., 2015. Perception of young local residents toward sustainable conservation programmes: A case study of the Lenggong World Cultural Heritage Site. Tourism Management, 48, pp.154-163.

Job, H., Becken, S. and Lane, B., 2017. Protected Areas in a neoliberal world and the role of tourism in supporting conservation and sustainable development: an assessment of strategic planning, zoning, impact monitoring, and tourism management at natural World Heritage Sites. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(12), pp.1697-1718.

Marzeion, B. and Levermann, A., 2014. Loss of cultural world heritage and currently inhabited places to sea-level rise. Environmental Research Letters, 9(3), p.034001.