INTRODUCTION

A World Heritage Site is a landmark or area with legal protection by an

international convention administered by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). World Heritage Sites are
designated by UNESCO for having cultural, historical, scientific or other
form of significance. The sites are judged to contain
"cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of
outstanding value to humanity".[2] To be selected, a World Heritage Site
must be a somehow unique landmark which is geographically and
historically identifiable and has special cultural or physical significance. For
example, World Heritage Sites might be ancient ruins or historical
structures, buildings, cities,[a] deserts, forests, islands, lakes, monuments,
mountains, or wilderness areas.[5][6] A World Heritage Site may signify a
remarkable accomplishment of humanity, and serve as evidence of our
intellectual history on the planet, or it might be a place of great natural
beauty.[7] As of June 2020, a total of 1,121 World Heritage Sites (869
cultural, 213 natural, and 39 mixed properties) exist across 167 countries;
the three countries with most sites are China, Italy (both 55)
and Spain (48).[8]
The sites are intended for practical conservation for posterity, which
otherwise would be subject to risk from human or animal trespassing,
unmonitored, uncontrolled or unrestricted access, or threat from local
administrative negligence. Sites are demarcated by UNESCO as protected
zones.[2] The list is maintained by the international World Heritage Program
administered by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, composed of 21
"states parties" that are elected by their General Assembly.[9] The
programme catalogues, names, and conserves sites of outstanding cultural
or natural importance to the common culture and heritage of humanity. The
programme began with the "Convention Concerning the Protection of the
World's Cultural and Natural Heritage",[10] which was adopted by the
General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972. Since then, 193
states parties have ratified the convention, making it one of the most widely
recognised international agreements and the world's most popular cultural
programme.[

History
Origin[edit]
In 1954, the government of Egypt decided to build the new Aswan High
Dam, whose resulting future reservoir would eventually inundate a large
stretch of the Nile valley containing cultural treasures of ancient Egypt and
ancient Nubia. In 1959, the governments of Egypt and Sudan requested
UNESCO to assist them to protect and rescue the endangered monuments
and sites. In 1960, the Director-General of UNESCO launched the
International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia.[12] This appeal
resulted in the excavation and recording of hundreds of sites, the recovery
of thousands of objects, as well as the salvage and relocation to higher
ground of several important temples. The most famous of these are the
temple complexes of Abu Simbel and Philae. The campaign ended in 1980
and was considered a success. To thank countries which especially
contributed to the campaign's success, Egypt donated four temples;
the Temple of Dendur was moved to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in
New York City, the Temple of Debod to the Parque del Oeste in Madrid,
the Temple of Taffeh to the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in the
Netherlands, and the Temple of Ellesyia to Museo Egizio in Turin.[13]
The project cost US$80 million, about $40 million of which was collected
from 50 countries.[14] The project's success led to other safeguarding
campaigns, such as saving Venice and its lagoon in Italy, the ruins
of Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan, and the Borobodur Temple Compounds in
Indonesia. Together with the International Council on Monuments and
Sites, UNESCO then initiated a draft convention to protect cultural heritage.

Objectives 
By assigning places as World Heritage Sites, UNESCO wants to help to
pass them on to future generations. Its motivation is that “[h]eritage is our
legacy from the past, what we live with today” and that both cultural and
natural heritage are “irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration”.
[2]
 UNESCO's mission with respect to World Heritage consists of eight
subtargets. These include encouraging the commitment of countries and
local population to World Heritage conservation in various ways, providing
emergency assistance for sites in danger, offering technical assistance and
professional training, and supporting States Parties' public awareness-
building activities.[2]
Being listed as a World Heritage Site can positively affect the site, its
environment, and interactions between them. A listed site gains
international recognition and legal protection, and can obtain funds from
among others the World Heritage Fund to facilitate its conservation under
certain conditions.[18] UNESCO reckons the restorations of the following four
sites among its success stories: Angkor in Cambodia, the Old City
of Dubrovnik in Croatia, the Wieliczka Salt Mine near Kraków in Poland,
and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania.[19] Additionally, the
local population around a site may benefit from significantly increased
tourism revenue.[20] When there are significant interactions between people
and the natural environment, these can be recognised as "cultural
landscapes".[b]

Selection criteria
Cultural[edit]

Site No. 252: Taj Mahal, an example of a cultural heritage site

i. "To represent a masterpiece of human creative genius"

ii. "To exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of
time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in
architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or
landscape design"
iii. "To bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural
tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared"
iv. "To be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or
technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant
stage(s) in human history"
v. "To be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement,
land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures),
 or human interaction with the environment especially when it has
become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change"
vi. "To be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions,
with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of
outstanding universal significance"[c]
Natural[edit]

Site No. 156: Serengeti National Park, an example of a natural heritage site

Site No. 274: Historic Sanctuary of

Machu Picchu, an example of a
mixed heritage site

vii. "to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional

natural beauty and aesthetic importance"
viii. "to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's
history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological
processes in the development of landforms, or significant
geomorphic or physiographic features"
ix. "to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going
ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development
 of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and
communities of plants and animals"
x. "to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-
situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing
threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of
view of science or conservation"
[7]

Extensions and other modifications[edit]

A country may request to extend or reduce the boundaries, modify the
official name, or change the selection criteria of one of its already listed
sites. Any proposal for a significant boundary change or to modify the site's
selection criteria must be submitted as if it were a new nomination,
including first placing it on the Tentative List and then onto the Nomination
File.[21] A request for a minor boundary change, one that does not have a
significant impact on the extent of the property or affect its "outstanding
universal value", is also evaluated by the advisory bodies before being sent
to the committee. Such proposals can be rejected by either the advisory
bodies or the Committee if they judge it to be a significant change instead
of a minor one.[21] Proposals to change a site's official name are sent directly
to the committee.[21]

Endangerment[edit]
Main articles: List of World Heritage in Danger and Former UNESCO
World Heritage Sites

A site may be added to the List of World Heritage in Danger if conditions

threaten the characteristics for which the landmark or area was inscribed
on the World Heritage List. Such problems may involve armed conflict and
war, natural disasters, pollution, poaching, or uncontrolled urbanisation or
human development. This danger list is intended to increase international
awareness of the threats and to encourage counteractive measures.
Threats to a site can be either proven imminent threats or potential dangers
that could have adverse effects on a site.[22]
The state of conservation for each site on the danger list is reviewed yearly;
after this, the Committee may request additional measures, delete the
property from the list if the threats have ceased or consider deletion from
both the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List.
  Only two sites have ever been delisted: the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in
[21]

Oman and the Dresden Elbe Valley in Germany. The Arabian Oryx

Sanctuary was directly delisted in 2007, instead of first being put on the
danger list, after the Omani government decided to reduce the protected
area's size by 90 per cent.[23] The Dresden Elbe Valley was first placed on
the danger list in 2006 when the World Heritage Committee decided that
plans to construct the Waldschlösschen Bridge would significantly alter the
valley's landscape. In response, Dresden City Council attempted to stop
the bridge's construction. However, after several court decisions allowed
the building of the bridge to proceed, the valley was removed from the
World Heritage List in 2009.[24]
The first global assessment to quantitatively measure threats to Natural
World Heritage Sites found that 63 per cent of sites have been damaged by
increasing human pressures including encroaching roads, agriculture
infrastructure and settlements over the last two decades.[25][26] These
activities endanger Natural World Heritage Sites and could compromise
their unique values. Of the Natural World Heritage Sites that contain forest,
91 per cent experienced some loss since 2000. Many of them are more
threatened than previously thought and require immediate conservation
action.[25]
Furthermore, the destruction of cultural assets and identity-establishing
sites is one of the primary goals of modern asymmetrical warfare.
Therefore, terrorists, rebels and mercenary armies deliberately smash
archaeological sites, sacred and secular monuments and loot libraries,
archives and museums. The UN, United Nations
peacekeeping and UNESCO in cooperation with Blue Shield
International are active in preventing such acts. "No strike lists" are also
created to protect cultural assets from air strikes.[27][28][29][30] However, only
through cooperation with the locals can the protection of World Heritage
Sites, archaeological finds, exhibits and archaeological sites from
destruction, looting and robbery be implemented sustainably. The president
of Blue Shield International Karl von Habsburg summed it up with the
words: “Without the local community and without the local participants, that
would be completely impossible”.[31][32]

Critique[edit]
Despite the successes of World Heritage listing in promoting conservation,
the UNESCO-administered project has attracted criticism. This was caused
by perceived under-representation of heritage sites outside Europe,
disputed decisions on site selection and adverse impact of mass tourism on
sites unable to manage rapid growth in visitor numbers.[33][34] A
large lobbying industry has grown around the awards because World
Heritage listing can significantly increase tourism returns. Site listing bids
are often lengthy and costly, putting poorer countries at a disadvantage.
Eritrea's efforts to promote Asmara are one example.[35] In 2016, the
Australian government was reported to have successfully lobbied for Great
Barrier Reef conservation efforts to be removed from a UNESCO report
titled "World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate". The Australian
government's actions were in response to their concern about the negative
impact that an "at risk" label could have on tourism revenue at a previously
designated UNESCO World Heritage Site.[36][37] Several listed locations such
as George Town in Penang, Casco Viejo in Panama and Hội An in Vietnam
have struggled to strike the balance between the economic benefits of
catering to greatly increased visitor numbers and preserving the original
culture and local communities that drew the recognition.
List of World Heritage in Danger
The List of World Heritage in Danger is compiled
by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) through the World
Heritage Committee according to Article 11.4 of the
World Heritage Convention,[nb 1] which was
established in 1972 to designate and manage World
Heritage Sites. Entries in the list are threatened
World Heritage Sites for the conservation of which
major operations are required and for which
"assistance has been requested".[1] The list is
intended to increase international awareness of the
threats and to encourage counteractive measures.
[2]
 Threats to a site can be either proven imminent
threats or potential dangers that could have adverse
effects on 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 caused by human activities such as
logging, pollution, 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
properties. In the case of cultural sites, gradual
changes due to geology, climate or environment can
also be potential dangers.[3]
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 is made
by 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, after which the
committee may request additional measures, delete
the property from the list if the threats have ceased
or consider deletion from both the List of World
Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List.[3] Of
the two Former UNESCO World Heritage Sites,
the Dresden Elbe Valley was delisted after
placement on the List of World Heritage in Danger
while the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary was directly
delisted.[4][5] Some sites have been designated as
World Heritage Sites and World Heritage in Danger
in the same year, such as the Church of the Nativity,
traditionally considered to be the birthplace of Jesus.
In some cases, danger listing has sparked
conservation efforts and prompted the release of
funds, resulting in a positive development for sites
such as the Galápagos Islands and Yellowstone
National Park, both of which have subsequently
been removed from the List of World Heritage in
Danger. Despite this, the list itself and UNESCO's
implementation of it have been the focus of criticism.
[6][7]
 In particular, States Parties and other
stakeholders of World Heritage Sites have
questioned the authority of the Committee to declare
a site in danger without their consent.[8] Until 1992,
when UNESCO set a precedent by placing several
sites on the danger list against their wishes, States
Parties would have submitted a programme of
corrective measures before a site could be listed.
[9]
 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 States Parties.[10][11] 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.[12] The Union also
argues that keeping a site listed as endangered over
a long period is questionable and that other
mechanisms for conservation should be sought in
these cases.[13]
As of July 2019, there are 53 entries (17 natural, 36
cultural) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Arranged by the UNESCO regions, 21 of the listed
sites are located in the Arab States (of which 6 are
located in Syria and 5 in Libya), 16 in Africa (of
which 5 are in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo), 6 in Latin America and the Caribbean, 6 in
Asia and the Pacific, and 4 in Europe and North
America. The majority of the endangered natural
sites (12) are located in Africa.

Cultural heritage
Cultural heritage is the legacy of physical artifacts
and intangible attributes of a group or society that is
inherited from past generations. Not all legacies of
past generations are "heritage", rather heritage is a
product of selection by society.[1]
Cultural heritage includes tangible culture (such as
buildings, monuments, landscapes, books, works of
art, and artifacts), intangible culture (such as
folklore, traditions, language, and knowledge),
and natural heritage (including culturally significant
landscapes, and biodiversity).[2]
The deliberate act of keeping cultural and heritage
from the present for the future is known
as preservation (American English)
or conservation (British English), which cultural and
historical ethnic museums and cultural
centers promote, though these terms may have
more specific or technical meaning in the same
contexts in the other dialect. Preserved heritage has
become an anchor of the global tourism industry, a
major contributor economic value to local
communities.[1]
Legal protection of cultural property comprises a
number of international agreements and national
laws, and these must also be implemented. United
Nations, UNESCO and Blue Shield
International deal with the protection of cultural
heritage. This also applies to the integration
of United Nations peacekeeping.
Protection of cultural heritage[edit]
Protection of cultural heritage or protection of
cultural goods means all measures to protect
cultural property against damage, destruction, theft,
embezzlement or other loss. The term “monument
protection” is also used for immovable cultural
property. This relates in particular to the prevention
of robbery digs at archaeological sites, the looting or
destruction of cultural sites and the theft of works of
art from churches and museums all over the world
and basically measures regarding the conservation
and general access to our common cultural heritage.
Legal protection of cultural heritage comprises a
number of international agreements and national
laws, and these must also be implemented.[9][10][11][12][13]
There is a close partnership between Blue Shield
International, the UN, United Nations
peacekeeping, UNESCO and the International
Committee of the Red Cross.[8][14] In many armies,
such as the Austrian Armed Forces (Theresian
Military Academy), there are extensive protection
programs and cultural heritage protection is part of
the training.[15][16] Essentially, the armed forces and
conflicting parties are generally prohibited from
using cultural heritage, its immediate surroundings
and the facilities intended for its protection for
military (paramilitary) purposes, and in particular
exposing cultural property to destruction or damage
in the event of an armed conflict.

Karl von Habsburg, on a Blue Shield International fact-

finding mission in Libya
There have been examples of respect for the
cultural assets of enemies since ancient times. The
roots of today's legal situation for the explicit
protection of cultural heritage also lie in some of
Austria's ruler Maria Theresa (1717 - 1780) decided
Regulations and the demands of the Congress of
Vienna (1814/15) not to remove works of art from
their place of origin in the war.[17] The process
continued at the end of the 19th century when, in
1874 (in Brussels), at least a draft international
agreement on the laws and customs of war was
agreed. 25 years later, in 1899, an international
peace conference was held in the Netherlands on
the initiative of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, with the
aim of revising the declaration (which was never
ratified) and adopting a convention. The Hague
Conventions of 1899 and 1907 also significantly
advanced international law and laid down the
principle of the immunity of cultural property. Three
decades later, in 1935, the preamble to the Treaty
on the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions
(Roerich Pact) was formulated. On the initiative of
UNESCO, the Hague Convention for the Protection
of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed
Conflict was signed in 1954.[18]
The protection of the cultural heritage should also
preserve the particularly sensitive cultural memory,
the growing cultural diversity and the economic
basis of a state, a municipality or a region. Whereby
there is also a connection between cultural user
disruption or cultural heritage and the cause of flight.
But only through the fundamental cooperation,
including the military units and the planning staff,
with the locals can the protection of world heritage
sites, archaeological finds, exhibits and
archaeological sites from destruction, looting and
robbery be implemented sustainably. The president
of Blue Shield International Karl von
Habsburg summed it up with the words: “Without the
local community and without the local participants,
that would be completely impossible”.[19][20][21][22]
The ethics and rationale of cultural preservation[edit]
Objects are a part of the study of human history
because they provide a concrete basis for ideas,
and can validate them. Their preservation
demonstrates a recognition of the necessity of the
past and of the things that tell its story.[23] In The Past
is a Foreign Country, David Lowenthal observes that
preserved objects also validate memories.
While digital acquisition techniques can provide a
technological solution that is able to acquire the
shape and the appearance of artifacts with an
unprecedented precision[24] in human history, the
actuality of the object, as opposed to a reproduction,
draws people in and gives them a literal way of
touching the past. This unfortunately poses a danger
as places and things are damaged by the hands of
tourists, the light required to display them, and other
risks of making an object known and available. The
reality of this risk reinforces the fact that all artifacts
are in a constant state of chemical transformation,
so that what is considered to be preserved is
actually changing – it is never as it once was.
[25]
 Similarly changing is the value each generation
may place on the past and on the artifacts that link it
to the past.

Kautilya Society in Varanasi - When heritage protection

becomes a fight for legality and participation   → "They
harass me because I demand civil society participation to
public policies and I contrast the misuse of privileges"
Classical civilizations, and especially the Indian,
have attributed supreme importance to the
preservation of tradition. Its central idea was that
social institutions, scientific knowledge and
technological applications need to use a "heritage"
as a "resource".[26] Using contemporary language, we
could say that ancient Indians considered, as social
resources, both economic assets (like natural
resources and their exploitation structure) and
factors promoting social integration (like institutions
for the preservation of knowledge and for the
maintenance of civil order).[27] Ethics considered that
what had been inherited should not be consumed,
but should be handed over, possibly enriched, to
successive generations. This was a moral imperative
for all, except in the final life stage of sannyasa.
What one generation considers "cultural heritage"
may be rejected by the next generation, only to be
revived by a subsequent generation.