User:Bamse/List of World Heritage Sites in Danger

The World Heritage Convention laid down by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1972 provides the basis for the designation and management of World Heritage Sites. According to article 11.4 of the convention, UNESCO, through the World Heritage Committee, may place threatened World Heritage Sites whose conservation require major operations and for which "assistance has been requested" on a List of World Heritage in Danger. This action is intended to increase the international awareness to the threat and to encourage counteractive measures. Threats to a site can be either ascertained dangers which are proven imminent threats or potential dangers that could have adverse effects on the characteristics of a site.

In the case of natural sites, ascertained dangers include the serious decline in the population of an endangered or other valuable species or the deterioration of natural beauty or scientific value of a property by man-made activities such as logging, pollution, human settlement, mining, agriculture and major public works. Ascertained dangers for cultural properties include serious deterioration of materials, structure, ornaments or architectural coherence and the loss of historical authenticity or cultural significance. Potential dangers for both cultural and natural sites include development projects, armed conflicts, insufficient management systems or changes in the legal protective status of the property. In the case of cultural sites gradual changes due to geology, climate or environment can also be potential dangers.

Before a property is inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, its condition is assessed and a potential programme for corrective measures is developed in cooperation with the state party involved. The final decision about inscription lies in the hand of the committee. Financial support from the World Heritage Fund may be allocated by the committee for listed properties. The state of conservation is reviewed on a yearly basis. Depending on the outcome of the review, the committee may request additional measures or delete the property from the list if the threats ceased to exist or may consider deletion from both the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List. Of the two former sites, the Dresden Elbe Valley has been delisted after placement on the List of World Heritage in Danger while the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary has been directly delisted. As of 2011, there are 35 entries (17 natural, 18 cultural) on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Many of the listed sites are located in the developing world with 15 in Africa (of which five are in the Democratic Republic of the Congo), 10 in Asia, 7 in the Americas and 3 in Europe. The majority of endangered natural sites (12) is located in Africa.

While danger listing has sparked conservation efforts and released funding, resulting in a positive development of some sites such as Galápagos or Yellowstone, the list itself and UNESCO's implementation of it have been the focus of criticism. In particular state parties and other stakeholders of World Heritage Sites have questioned the authority of the Committee to declare a site in danger without their consent. Until UNESCO set a precedent in 1992 placing several sites on the danger list against their view, state parties would have first submitted a program of corrective measures before a site could listed. Instead of being used as intended, the List of World Heritage in Danger is perceived by some states as a black list and according to Christina Cameron, Professor at the School of Architecture, Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, University of Montreal, has been used as political tool to get the attention of state parties. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) notes that UNESCO has referenced the List of World Heritage in Danger (without actually listing the site) in a number of cases where the threat could be easily addressed by the state party. The Union also argues that listing a site as endangered over a long period of time is questionable and that other mechanisms for conservation should be sought in these cases.


 * statistics
 * 35 sites (17 natural/18cultural) liste: 15 in africa (5 in congo, largely due to armed conflict); 7 in americas; 10 in asia (includes Jerusalem; two Georgia sites are in Europe per UNESCO); 3 in Europe (includes 2 sites in Georgia)
 * natural sites mainly in africa (12 out of 17)
 * particularly sites in the developing world are in danger (in 2008 all but two sites were in developing world)


 * other
 * List of World Heritage in Danger has been referenced in a number of decisions where a clear, specific and significant threat has been noted within the “normal” State of Conservation process that (in most cases) were capable of being addressed by the State Party relatively easily. (+examples)
 * discussion of sites that are inscribed for a long time (can sites be in danger for such a long time?)


 * criticisms: WHiD<->"blacklist"!? / LoWHiD not used as intended / debate over whether committee can put sites on list


 * disagreement of definition of "assistance requested" (by state party/ by committee); UNESCO's view is that the committee does not need to consult state party
 * operational guidelines (of 1992 at least!!!!) make it unlikely that the LoWHiD would be used as a tool for which it is intended (because state parties must first submit a program outlining corrective measures to be undertaken before site can be placed on danger list)<-issues with state parties that view list as black list; e.g. manas, mt nimba, rio platano and tai have been recommended by iucn for danger list but no program as of 1992


 * according to Christina Cameron (Professor, School of Architecture, Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, University of Montreal): the LoWHiD is "is not being used as an effective conservation tool to identify needs and set priorities for investment in conservation."
 * LoWHiD is not used as intended ("as a list of threatened sites that required major operations and for which assistance had been requested. It was meant to be a published priority list of projects with cost estimates that could be used to mobilize international cooperation and major donors. To my knowledge, the In Danger List has never been used in this way.")
 * "Instead, it is perceived as a black mark, a criticism to be avoided at all costs. It has become a political tool to get the attention of States Parties."
 * despite of some successes (see ref for examples) the LoWHiD could not prevent the delisting of dresden site


 * the why and how of committee's decision to place sites on LoWHiD have been subject of heated debate with state parties and other stakeholders of WHSites questioning the Committee's authority to declare a site to be "in danger" overriding the view of the state party
 * precedent (for putting sites on list against state parties view) was set in 1992 (several sites)
 * questions regarding merits and justifiability of placement on LoWHSiD have been raised in many cases, e.g. Galapagos, Yellowstone, Simien, Kakadu, El Viscaino


 * positive aspects
 * the importance of threat monitoring as part of the management of WH sites was emphasized a IUCN's second World Conservation Congress in Amman (October 2000)
 * debates surrounding possible danger listing of galapagos, yellowstone and el viscaino have "improved responses of global conservation community and donors to support actions to conserve sites in danger"
 * labelling as WHiD allows funding to be released and can be a catalyst for improved conservation efforts