The Depratment of Culture, Media and Sport have recently undertaken a consultation exercise aimed at reiewing the UK’s current and future policies on World Heritage Sites. A copy of the DCMS’s current mission statement and questions posed by the consultation can be seen below, followed by my response.

DCMS Mission Statement;

‘Our aim is to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, support the pursuit of excellence, and champion the tourism, creative and leisure industries’

UNESCO’s World Heritage mission is to:
Encourage countries to sign the World Heritage Convention and to ensure the protection of their natural and cultural heritage;

Encourage States Parties to the Convention to nominate sites within their national territory for inclusion on the World Heritage List;

Encourage States Parties to establish management plans and set up reporting systems on the state of conservation of their World Heritage sites;

Help States Parties safeguard World Heritage properties by providing technical assistance and professional training;

Provide emergency assistance for World Heritage sites in immediate danger;

Support States Parties’ public awareness-building activities for World Heritage conservation;

Encourage participation of the local population in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage;

Encourage international cooperation in the conservation of our world’s cultural and natural heritage.

Questions posed by Conusultation

Question 1: Given the factors we have set out in this document, which of the following options should we adopt in relation to the future nomination of sites for World Heritage Status?

Continue to nominate annually from our existing Tentative List;

Suspend new nominations for a period;

Draw up a shorter and more focused Tentative List, spacing out our nominations so that we are not necessarily proposing a new site each year and introducing a two-stage application process to filter out early those sites unlikely to be successful (preferred option); and/or

Consider alternative designations such as a National Heritage List or the European Heritage label.

Question 2: What further measures should be considered to improve the management and promotion of our World Heritage Sites?

In response to the question of nominations a simple approach would seem to be the best option. Drawing up a shorter and more focused tentative list would be appropriate for future listings, however at present it is perhaps more important to focus on refining the application process, this is likely to be viewed as a fairer option by potential and existing nominees alike. Restricting the number of possible applications and/or removing altogether the existing tentative list could potentially be viewed as unfair.

There is a case for stopping new nominations for a set period in order to redress the existing imbalance as identified by the World Heritage Committee’s ‘Global Strategy for a Balanced, Representative and Credible World Heritage List’.

As PwC have identified there is a current trend to view WHS designation as a key to unlocking funding and as a tool for regeneration rather than one for protection and conservation, and it may be that a halt to applications would provide an opportunity to ‘refresh’ perceptions of WHS listing.

However the idea of creating alternative designations could potentially be counter effective, having a detrimental effect on the valuation of other heritage ‘assets’, particularly at a national level of designation, such designations may erode the importance of ‘assets’ considered nationally important at present but not important enough to add to the ‘almost a WHS’ national list.

In terms of creating a European heritage label it is hard to see any real benefit that could be derived from this, moreover it could be seen to be in contrary to the WH Committee’s Global Strategy in which a predominance of European sites was identified and seen to be in need of redress. The creation of a European  ‘almost a WHS’ list could only swing the balance further in favour of this already over represented group. In addition the creation of either of these potential extra lists would only add to an already over complicated system of heritage ‘asset’ classification, as stated earlier the answer to solving the ‘issue’ of nominations should be a simple approach.

In response to the second question, regarding further measures that should be considered to improve the management and promotion of our WHS, the issue that should take the utmost priority is the refocusing of our perception of WHS status towards a stronger bias for conservation, re-identifying a connection with the principles behind our protection of outstanding natural and cultural resources.

A greater emphasis could be placed on locally based activities at WH Sites, particularly promotion, encouragement and support for community involvement in the ‘care’ of the WHS, projects could take various forms, from the setting up of a regular ‘tidying team’ or the involvement of local groups/individuals as points of information or ‘local guides’ for visitors to a WHS.

Of particular concern was the statement in chapter 7, para 7.24 of the consultation document, that for some WH Sites the failure to promote their status was a “deliberate choice” as “WHS status and ‘heritage’…are not…seen as a good fit with the image they wish to portray”. Considering the non-statutory nature of WHS status and the negligible additional protection this listing confers upon a site (beyond ‘material consideration’ under Article 1 (5) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and Welsh Office Circular 61/96, Planning and the Historic Environment) any wish by a ‘site’ not to promote its WHS status is thrown into serious question. Such inaction could surely be potentially seen as contrary to the UNESCO mission statement for WH Sites, which promotes the raising of awareness. A measure necessary in this case to improve our promotion of WH Sites would be to confer a duty upon all those wishing to become and those existing as WH Sites to promote their status and the philosophy and structure of the system behind that status, at least at a basic level all WH Sites should act as a point of reference or information for visitors and other interested parties to UNESCO and WH Sites. A wider view of WHS internationally and connections between neighbours is key to the effective future management and promotion of the UK’s WH Sites.

Greater inclusion of WHS and other heritage issues into schools curriculums would be worthwhile, particularly in areas of Personal and Social Education or ‘PSE’.

Finally however it is essential that at some point WH Sites are recognised in statute becoming included in heritage protection law and that a greater emphasis is placed on government guidance and responsibility for sites that are and those looking to become WH Sites, taking a share of the responsibility that is currently divided up between local authorities, private individuals, organisations and in many cases voluntary groups.

Author: Claudine Gerrard, 2009