The outlook for World Heritage at 50 – crisis or crossroads?

Facilitated by IUCN’s World Heritage Programme, the session gave space for different voices involved in World Heritage conservation, including institutional ones such as UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre and the Convention’s advisory bodies (ICCROM, ICOMOS, IUCN), as well spokespeople from across IUCN’s diverse membership, including Indigenous Peoples’ Organisations. The event gave voice to the perspectives of communities in developing countries and Indigenous Peoples. It took stock of successes and challenges, looking at the outcomes of the 44th World Heritage Committee meeting and findings of the IUCN World Heritage Outlook.

Mechtild Rössler, Director of UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre, opened the discussions by stressing the importance of governance at all levels – site, local, national and global. She pointed to the issues emerging from the World Heritage Committee not following its own rules of procedure and operational guidelines, and ignoring scientific advice. These include inscriptions of an ever-growing number of sites on the World Heritage List (half of which are in Europe and North America), and conservation issues, such as the occurrence of ill-advised development threatening many sites.

Peter Shadie of IUCN’s World Heritage Programme presented an analysis of findings from the IUCN World Heritage Outlook showing that indeed Committee decisions impact conservation outcomes. The majority (88%) of sites inscribed since 2010 following IUCN’s advice have a positive outlook, while this figure drops to 60% for the sites inscribed by the Committee despite IUCN’s recommendation for a deferral or referral. He pointed to the increasing trend of the Committee to overturn and weaken technical recommendations, as illustrated by several key decisions at its last meeting in July 2021. 

Marie-Laure Lavenir, Director General of ICOMOS identified three main challenges facing the World Heritage Convention in the next 50 years. First, climate change is becoming a main threat, not only for natural sites as shown in the IUCN World Heritage Outlook, but also for cultural sites. Second, local communities need to be given communities a key role in the nomination and management of sites, and third, this needs to be articulated with the universalism at the centre of Convention.

Valerie Magar of ICCROM also highlighted the importance of investing in people, and in many different languages, if World Heritage sites are to lead to a more sustainable future. Dialogue can facilitate learning from traditional knowledge and practices of people managing the sites and those living in them, paying attention to terminology to understand how territories are perceived.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Jose Francisco Calì Tzay, said that while conventions for respecting Indigenous Peoples are in place, their critical role in conserving biodiversity is yet to be fully recognised. “Indigenous Peoples have taken care of nature for millennia not just for themselves but for all humanity – they are the guardians who will be responsible for our survival. We have to be together, because by protecting Indigenous Peoples’ rights, the reserves in their care will also be protected,” he said. 

Chrissy Grant, chair of the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on World Heritage, raised concern over the lack of adherence to the principle of free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities: “This sends a clear message that their concerns are not required or important.” She said Indigenous Peoples should be included in all processes, acknowledging the barriers (cultural, linguistic, financial, etc) to their full engagement.

While success stories exist, there has also been injustice and disrespect in the context of World Heritage. Peter Bille Larsen of the University of Geneva intervened from the audience to question whether breaches of a governing body’s own guidelines should not require intervention from a higher level at the United Nations.

Charles Oluchina of IUCN’s Tanzania Country Office explained that lack of active and inclusive consultations as well as weak governance does result in conflict in the case of development decisions involving powerful corporations such as oil and gas. At the same time, African countries are striving to transition to economic growth and development as population expands (including among Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities). While World Heritage remains a commitment and a source of national pride, he said, the dilemma in reconciling conservation and development emerges where essential infrastructure projects overlap with nature reserves. Lack of management and technical investments is also a key barrier to long-term sustainability of some World Heritage sites.

Mechtild Rössler commented further that sustainable development and conservation go hand in hand, stressing the importance of dialogue to be at the earliest stages of development projects to find solutions in line with the World Heritage Convention. In her closing remarks, she also called for the need to link the Convention to the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda and the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: “World Heritage is a global brand we can use for the future of humanity. We cannot each convention just work on our own – there are millions of people and stakeholders involved in World Heritage and we shouldn’t disappoint them.”

As the session ended, Tim Badman, Director of IUCN’s World Heritage Programme drew two conclusions from the discussions as fundamental for the future of the Convention. The first is the importance to situate World Heritage as part of the larger challenges to reconcile conservation and development goals, in order to ensure its relevance to 21st century practice. “We have to aspire for a world where World Heritage represents the best in terms of conservation practice, including recognising and fully respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples,” he said.

The second is that advisory bodies cannot address the governance challenge brought on by a convention that has rules and standards but does not apply them. “In this discussion, we have put our finger on the real issue. This is not about a Committee not agreeing with its experts: this is a governance crisis,” he said.