What do a cathedral in Croatia, a coffee plantation in Cuba and a village in China have in common? They are among the most recent additions to UNESCO's list of world heritage sites, which comprises 690 sites of "exceptional universal value" in 122 countries. Other heritage sites include Skellig Michael in the Republic, the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland, the Grand Canyon in the US and the barrier reef in Belize and the Galapagos islands in Ecuador and the Serengeti in Tanzania.
Although the mission of UNESCO's World Heritage Committee (WHC) is to identify such sites and, with international co-operation, to protect them, inscription of a site onto the list doesn't automatically mean that it is protected.
UNESCO's WHC, established in 1972, is an advisory body and has no powers to restrict development, pollution or even destruction of heritage sites. It is in something of a catch 22 situation, since inscription of a site onto the list can encourage tourists to visit; then governments and entrepreneurs, particularly in developing countries, take advantage of this; and the site becomes increasingly commercialised.
There have been cases, admits Junko Taniguchi of the World Heritage Centre's Asia Cultural Heritage section, "where inscription has led to rapid and unplanned tourism development [AND]resulted in the deterioration of some of the values which originally justified inscription of a site on the World Heritage list".
One of the best-preserved cities in China, and closed to foreigners until 1988, 1,300-year-old Lijiang (controlled by the Naxi people) became a world heritage site in 1997. But surviving the Mongol hordes, the Communist regime and earthquakes was easier than withstanding the advent of tourism. "What is happening now, of concern to a lot of Naxi themselves, is that many of the local people have decided to rent out their homes to outsiders to turn into shops," says Heather Peters, a UNESCO consultant. "The problem is that it's turning into a town which is not necessarily a Naxi town," she adds.
The WHC is aware of the problems tourism can bring: "Before a site is inscribed on the World Heritage list, the WH advisory bodies carry out an assessment. If a tourism problem is identified, the WH bureau would ask state parties to, for example, submit a tourism management plan or take necessary action to mitigate the threat," explains Arthur Pedersen, a World Heritage consultant.
One advantage for WH sites in developing countries is that funds become available, from UNESCO and other agencies, which, in cases such as the salt works project in Viscaino, Mexico, can help to resist commercial pressures, he says.
If the committee believes the risk to heritage is serious, it can put a site onto its List of World Heritage Sites in Danger. Currently, UNESCO is running 24 international campaigns costing $1.5 billion a year. The longest running is a campaign to save Venice, which began in 1966.
Although UNESCO is only an advisory body, it can bring moral pressure to bear on governments and developers. Yellowstone National Park in the US, for instance, joined the WH list in 1978, but by the 1990s, wildlife was at risk from destruction of habitats and increased pollution. Despite the US Congress viewing UNESCO's alarm as an infringement of US sovereignty, the resulting international attention has led to increased environmental awareness at state and federal levels.
Other success stories include the Giza Pyramids, which were threatened with a highway until UNESCO negotiations with the Egyptian government found alternative solutions; Delphi, which was put on the list only after the Greek government had found an alternative site for a proposed aluminium plant; and the Royal Chitwan National Park in Nepal, where a plan to divert a river was abandoned after the World Heritage Committee reported that it would threaten the habitat of 400 one-horned rhinoceros.
UNESCO's inability to prevent development can have damaging consequences for heritage. In Peru, the Inca city of Machu Picchu is in danger from a government-endorsed plan to run a cable car up the mountain. A UNESCO team visited the site last year and, in a report released in February, said that "no new construction" should take place in the remote, 600-year-old city and recommended reducing the tourist services at the site, which include the Machu Picchu hotel and a terrace bar.
UNESCO also argues that Machu Picchu, which has 350,000 visitors a year, has reached saturation point and will not withstand any increase in tourist traffic. Currently, visitors make an arduous 40 kilometre-trek, or take a local bus from the valley floor to the summit. Construction of the cable car system was postponed two years ago, after UNESCO hinted it might remove the site from its World Heritage List if the project went ahead.
When making decisions on additions to the World Heritage list, UNESCO does not seem to assess a country's human rights record. Pagan, the ancient ruined capital of Burma, is currently being considered for inclusion on the World Heritage list. "Pagan is the site of some of the worst abuses of people moved from their homes to clear the way for tourism," says Lara Marsh of Tourism Concern, which recommends that tourists boycott Burma, as the money they spend helps to prop up the regime.
"There are reports that up to 5,000 people were removed at gunpoint from their homes in 1990, in preparation for the Visit Myanmar Year," she says. "UNESCO should listen to their colleagues in more responsible sections of the UN, such as the International Labour Organisation, which has been extremely outspoken and has extremely well-documented evidence of human rights abuses and forced labour."
Taniguchi explains that any "state party" to the World Heritage Convention, such as Burma, can propose a site for inscription, to be assessed by the World Heritage Centre, World Heritage advisory bodies and the World Heritage Committee. Marsh, however, points to the seminar on heritage and tourism, held last June, by the Burmese government, in cooperation with UNESCO: "Human rights groups are highly displeased with the legitimacy UNESCO seems to be bestowing on the regime".
UNESCO's World Heritage list:www.unesco.org/whc