- 09 Mar 2010
Recently there have been a number of occassions when I have been told by other people just what should constitute World Heritage, in most cases it appears to be that people have a vested interest in the particular site or area they are suggesting should be world heritage. But just what should World Heritage be?
We have a clear set of guidelines available to us to refer to, those of the 1972 World Heritage Convention, so why do people ask the same question again and again, and why do they firmly believe ‘thier site’ should be on the ‘list’ of World Heritage sites when quite frankly it probably shouldn’t?
Is there an underlying problem with peoples understanding of what the World Heritage Convention was and is all about, or is there a problem with the Convention?
- Category: Uncategorized
March 9th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Cultural heritage? Built heritage? Universal heritage? Whose heritage? Does heritage matter?
March 9th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
The problem is that for many people the site they are particularly interested in is the most important and therefore must be of World Heritage status. Moreover many people have never heard of the convention but assume that by getting their particular site the status this will lead to extra protection and additional funding. Currently in Wales there is no extra protection in the planning system for a World Heritage Site and at least initially no extra money. Anyway why do you need to be grnated such status? I understand that York now refers in its publicity that it is a “World Heritage City” even though it is not even a candidate site for World Heritage status. However, many vistors believe that it is a World Heritage Site and therefore any toruism benefits are achieved without going therough the rigmoral of going to UNESCO.
March 9th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
People will be naturally biased towards their “own” site, irrespective of guidelines. It must be easier to want to promote a site one is familiar with, however deserving others may be.
March 25th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
After a quick straw poll around (non heritage professional) friends, a surprising number knew what World Heritage Status is and that it related to defined criteria by UNESCO. Heritage as a single and separate term seemed to them to relate to anything archaeological, historical, ecological (eg ASNW (woodlands), geological beach/coastal area) and really anything of importance that we have the stewardship of. Yes, heritage matters very much, to lots of people on a number of levels as it ehances our lives in a great variety of ways.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
What criteria do UNESCO use to judge whether a site is worthy to be come a World Heritage Site? Is it based on the importance of the heritage/environment of the area? The level of site’s preservation? Local interest in the site? Goverment lobbying?