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?