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?

Wouldn’t it be good if heritage sites could be more or less self sufficient?  Entrance fees, profits from souvenirs, etc, all monies should go towards the upkeep of the site and staffing costs.  Is it fair to charge visitors to see what is their own heritage?  How many visitors are locals or even nationals of the site?  It would be naive to suggest that I should be able to go to the cinema without paying for a ticket - after all the film had to be made, the actors paid, the cinema has bills to pay to enable it to run and it also has to make a profit or it will close down.  Is it the responsibility of the local taxpayer to subsidise my visit to the cinema?  I’ve chosen to go there.  If I choose to visit an ancient site, why should the local taxpayer subsidise my visit there?  It must be possible to charge a fair entrance fee to a site that doesn’t result in a burden on people who happen to live nearby and, of course, the site doesn’t actually have to turn in a profit, it only needs to break even.

Following the episode of BBC2 series Saving Britain’s Past on the Blaenavon World Heritage Site, my colleagues and I have once again been debating the usabilty of a heritage site as a tool for community and economic regeneration. We’ve been asking questions like is it really the job of the site, landscape or  monument to regenerate a community? And with a growing trend for local government departments, community groups amongst others to see heritage as a ‘cash cow’ should we be getting worried that the heritage we are so keen to protect and conserve is just another commodity? Is tourism really the best option and only option for the securing the long term future of sites? Or conversely are we (the profession) simply being a little too precious about our heritage?

Tourism featured heavily in Tom Dyckhoff’s recent visit to Blaenavon in Saving Britain’s Past, it appeared from the programme that the only hope for the Big Pit, Ironworks and  town of Blaenavon was to turn to tourism to save their struggling economy and community. But was this really the case? The programme suggested that Big Pit and the Blaenavon World Heritage landscape were somehow an odd choice, or at least initially seen to be an odd choice for inscription onto the World Heritage List, but in a world with changing attitudes to heritage and the growing recognition of the importance of industry in the development of our modern world this seems a little short sighted.

The programme went on to interview a series of local government officials and individuals involved in the early management of the sites along with residents of the town and local businesses. Interestingly ,no one currently involved in the management of the World Heritage Site or Big Pit mining museum were included in the programme, I was left wondering why, it seemed a missed opportunity.

Focusing back on heritage tourism, in particular to World Heritage sites, would it be fair to say do you suppose that applications for World Heritage Site status are made on a twofold basis, that of conservation and also tourism? I would say that this is becoming more often the case than not. It is important to remember that world heritage tourism brings with it great costs as well as benefits, whilst increased ticket sales and visitor spending are evident there is also often an accompanying added strain on the fabric of a destination and the community therein. Many of the residents of Blaenavon were seen to note in Saving Britain’s Past that the world heritage label has brought increased tourism but they’ve still lost facilities for themselves as a local community. It is a difficult line for the heritage promoter/professional to walk, between protecting and promoting a world heritage site and managing the hopes of the local community who are occasionally left expecting miracle transformations.

Is there a need for a refocusing on the heritage and its benefits to enriching local life rather than it being seem as a cash generator which somehow becomes detached from those whose heritage it truly is?

13 new sites have been added to UNESCO’s World Heritage List which lost one site while three were placed on the ‘In Danger’ List.

The World Heritage Committee held its 33rd session last month, the session was chaired by María Jesús San Segundo, the Ambassador and Permanent Delegate of Spain to UNESCO. The Committee  inscribed two new natural sites and 11 cultural sites on UNESCO’s World Heritage List and withdrew one site from the List, Dresden Elbe Valley (Germany)- the decision to remove the Dresden Elbe Valley is sited as due to the ongoing construction of a four lane highway through the cultural landscape.

A further three sites were inscribed on UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger (apparently in an attempt to help raise international support for their preservation) and one site removed from the ‘In Danger’ list.

Burkina Faso, Cape Verde and Kyrgyzstan all had sites inscribed into the World Heritage List for the first time in this session.

A list of sites and their relative inscriptions as decided by the 33rd session of the WH Committee follows;

Natural sites inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List:

The Wadden Sea (Germany / The Netherlands)

The Dolomites (Italy)

Cultural sites inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List:

Stoclet House (Belgium)

The Ruins of Loropéni (Burkina Faso)

Cidade Velha, Historic Centre of Ribeira Grande (Cape Verde)

Mount Wutai (China)

Shushtar, Historical Hydraulic System (Iran)

Sulamain-Too Sacred Mountain (Kyrgyzstan)

The Sacred City of Caral-Supe (Peru)

The Royal Tombs of the Joseon Dynasty (Republic of Korea)

The Tower of Hercules (Spain)

La Chaux-de-Fonds / Le Locle watchmaking town-planning (Switzerland)

Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal (United Kingdom)

Extensions added to World Heritage properties:

The Great Saltworks of Salins-les-Bains (France)

Levoca (in Slovakia)

Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (Philippines)

Sites removed from UNESCO’s World Heritage List:

Germany’s Dresden Elbe Valley

Sites removed from UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger:

The walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah’s Palace and Maiden Tower (Azerbaijan)

Sites added to UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger:

Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Belize)

Los Katios National Park (Colombia)

The Historical Monuments of Mtskheta (Georgia)

This news has sparked some debate in my office regarding the validity of some World Heritage Sites, there have been some questions asked of the relative importance of sites added to the list compared to those already on it and other sites which aren’t ‘world heritage’. Following the UK’s DCMS consultation on World Heritage Sites status and its suggestion of a European Heritage List or equivalent have left some question marks regarding the levels of importance assigned to sites. Personally I’m not too keen on further division and labelling, it seems likely to only to add to the confusion….

The presentation, interpretation and use of heritage in the community can be seen to be limited by the legal framework within which archaeology and hertage protection exits.

It can be difficult to see how connections between the community and the  rigid framework of policies,laws and designations governing heritage can exist especially when that framework appears at first to pay little regard to the modern community and benefits they can draw from a heritage ‘resource’.

We have to ask ourselves are the systems we are working in serving only to protect the heritage or are they protecting the heritage to serve the communities in which that heritage exists? If the answer is that the system only serves to protect the heritage then is that really a problem, is it really the job of an archaeological site, listed building or artefact to rejuvenate and regenerate a failing community?

Perhaps the question is actually should there ever be a mutually beneficial relationship between heritage, law and the community, and if so how far can that relationship go before one part suffers at the expense of another?