This paper reviews the current procedure for identifying and listing cultural and natural heritage properties under UNESCO’s 1972 World Heritage Convention, analyses its shortcomings and posits a new approach. It contends that the extant process is contrary to the real intent of the Convention of identifying and conserving heritage of outstanding universal value through a system of international cooperation and, therefore, it does not contribute effectively to realising a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List. The paper advances a new paradigm to overcome the assessed limitations, principally by enhancing international cooperation to marshal and provide the best technical knowledge upstream of and throughout the process of identifying, nominating and including properties on the World Heritage List. It envisages a progressive inscription process with an enhanced and proactive role for the intergovernmental World Heritage Committee to prioritise, at an early stage of the process, sites meriting inclusion on the World Heritage List, thus enabling it to effectively guide the achievement of the Global Strategy for the World Heritage programme. Keywords: World Heritage ConventionWorld HeritageconservationcooperationOutstanding Universal Value Acknowledgements This paper reflects the personal views of the author and not necessarily those of UNESCO or its World Heritage Centre. Notes 1. The World Heritage Committee comprises 21 States Parties to the World Heritage Convention who are elected by the General Assembly of States Parties. The Committee is responsible for the implementation of the Convention. 2. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, http://whc.unesco.org/en/futureoftheconvention/. 3. The Director General of UNESCO in his address to the 33rd session of the World Heritage Committee (Seville, 2009) called for ‘bold steps to ensure the better and appropriate geographical and thematic balance called for by the Global Strategy’. Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?database=ged&set=4A72E3B4_2_323&look=dgnew&sc1=1&sc2=1&nl=1&ll=1&title=2009&hist=0&scroll=1. 4. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/. 5. ICOMOS – International Council of Monument and Sites; ICCROM – International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property; IUCN – International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 6. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, http://whc.unesco.org/en/intassistance/action=stats. 7. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, http://whc.unesco.org/en/intassistance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
K Ankita Rao (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: