Well, someone has been doing their homework!
The Big Question:
What is a World Heritage Site, and does the accolade make a difference?By Paul Vallely The Independent Friday, 7 November 2008
Why are we asking this now?
A United Nations team is about to visit Bath to decide whether the city still deserves the accolade of a World Heritage Site. There are 28 such sites in Britain but Bath is the only entire city to be listed.
But the heritage police are worried. They originally called Bath "a city that is harmonious and logical, in concord with its natural environment and extremely beautiful". But now they fear this might be spoiled by a new development to which the city council's planning committee has given outline permission. It will add 2,200 houses with shops, a school and a park right next to the River Avon. Some of the buildings are nine storeys high.
Enthusiasts for the scheme attack those who would keep Bath as "a city in aspic" and worry that the whole project may be at risk if the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco), which grants world heritage status, disapproves.
What kind of places are given the accolade?
Anything from a city to an individual building, monument, area, forest, mountain, desert or lake. There are currently 878 world heritage sites which include 678 listed for cultural reasons and 174 lauded as wonders of nature. These include the Great Barrier Reef, the Serengeti Desert, the Pyramids of Giza, the Statue of Liberty, the Great Wall of China, Mount Kenya, Edinburgh's Old and New Towns, Hadrian's Wall, Stonehenge, Memphis and its Necropolis, Persepolis, the Palace of Westminster, the centre of St Petersburg, the Banaue rice terraces in the Philippines and the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus railway station in Mumbai. The country with the biggest number of sites is Italy, which has 43.
Great Barrier Reef
How did the idea begin?
In 1954, the desert valley containing the twin Abu Simbel temples – which were carved out of a mountainside in southern Egypt in the 13th century BC on the orders of the Pharaoh Ramesses II – were about to be flooded by the building of the Aswan Dam. Frustrated by the Egyptian government's lack of action to protect the ancient buildings, Unesco launched a worldwide campaign that saved the temples by relocating them to higher ground at a cost of $80m, half of it collected from 50 countries.
The project was such a success that Unesco campaigns followed to save Venice and the ruins of one of the world's earliest urban settlements, Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan's Indus Valley, as well as the largest Buddhist structure in existence, the Borobodur temple compounds in Java, Indonesia.
Who decides whether heritage status is granted?
The Unesco World Heritage Committee, which is elected by nation states every four years. It meets once a year to choose the world's natural or human-made wonders in the greatest need of protection. Any country is eligible to send in a list of nominees for protection.
This year, the committee met in Quebec City, Canada, and added an extra 27 places across the globe to its list of "endangered species". Among them were more than 100 monumental tombs at Al-Hijr in Saudi Arabia, built by the Nabataean people between the first century BC and AD100. Another was the Monarch Butterfly Biosphere Reserve in Mexico, where one billion butterflies overwinter each year. The committee also added the island of Surtsey, which appeared 20 miles south of Iceland as a result of volcanic eruptions between 1963 and 1967, and is a pristine natural laboratory for the study of plant and animal colonisation.
What are the criteria for inclusion in the list?
Each site must meet at least one of 10 criteria. They must represent a "masterpiece of human creative genius", be "an important interchange of human values" or "bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to civilisation" past or present. Or they can be an outstanding example of a type of building or settlement which illustrates a significant stage in human history. They can "contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance", or be outstanding examples of major stages of Earth's history or ecological and biological processes in evolution. Sites can also house threatened species "of outstanding universal value".
How political is the choice?
Well, just nine per cent of the world heritage sites are in Africa and seven per cent in Arab countries, compared with 50 per cent in Europe and North America. This does suggest a certain cultural bias, but there are other political considerations. The US, whose government saw Unesco as a stalking horse for Communist and Third World countries to attack the West throughout the 1980s and 1990s, has refused to propose any new heritage sites since 1995. In that year, plans to open a gold mine near Yellowstone Park in Wyoming got the area placed on Unesco's "world heritage in danger" list. Conservatives in Washington decided that the scheme was an undercover attempt to subvert America's rights to govern itself and to destroy the fabric of US sovereignty.
Have there been any other controversies surrounding the scheme?
Pressure groups use world heritage status as a lever in political battles. In Australia, a group of Aborigines teamed up with environmentalists in a dispute over a uranium mine in the middle of the Kakadu National Park, a World Heritage Site which is home to hundreds of species of wildlife and is one of the country's oldest places of human occupation, dating back 60,000 years. Unesco called on ministers in Canberra to put a stop to the mining project, but the government hit backing, saying Unesco's report contained errors of fact, law, science and logic.
There was a similar row over a controversial hydroelectric dam project in La Amistad International Park, a world heritage-designated site which straddles Panama and Costa Rica and is Central America's largest and most diverse virgin rainforest.
What are the benefits?
Listed places receive extra media attention and tourists. That brings extra money in addition to cash from Unesco's preservation fund, though only developing countries can apply for the grants. Britain contributes £130,000 to the fund every year but gets nothing back, although world heritage status can attract extra funding from the national lottery and the private sector.
Publicity can help. Two 150ft statues of Buddha carved into a mountain in the Bamiyan Valley in Afghanistan in the 6th century, and which were destroyed by the Taliban in 2001, have received more than $4m from Unesco to help with the re-sculpting of the damaged stones.
And the disadvantages?
Listed places receive extra media attention and tourists. The higher profile that listing brings can draw an influx of visitors that poorer countries cannot handle. Fore example, the Angkor Wat temples in Cambodia, the Galapagos Islands and Machu Picchu in Peru have all seen massive increases in tourism. Sometimes listing does more harm than good and upsets the delicate balance between promoting places and preserving them.
Does it help to have World Heritage status?
Yes...
* It brings extra funds to poor countries to help conserve places of universal value
* It draws attention to the world's most neglected treasures and places of historic interest or natural beauty
* It can save places from total destruction by natural or human forces
No...* It brings in floods of extra tourists whose footprint can do more harm than good
* It can have the effect of preserving a living place in aspic and stifling innovation
* It can undermine a country's right to make decisions about its own heritage
Related Articles
Development puts Bath's UN heritage status at risk
Well its happening elsewhere, the blatent disregard for having World Heritage Status. The beautiful city of Bath is under threat of losing their status, at the hands of Property Developers
Crest Nicolson whose PR firm appears to be none other than infamous
PPS who are the spindoctors for Caltongate Developers, Mountgrange see
PPSClientsRead the
Icomosobjection to the Bath plans. It all sounds depressingly familiar doesn`t it?
Unesco are the body responsible for World Heritage Sites.
bathpreservationtrust and
bathheritagewatchdog are doing their best to protect their citys` heritage.Here its the
EdinburghWorldHeritageTrust and the
CockburnAssociation along with concerned citizens.
and finally HAPPY 60th BIRTHDAY Charles, like us here in the Republic he gets stick for daring to speak up and question the sometimes egotistical architecture of present and recent times ....and the mindless race to make all cities the same.
Caltongate Developer`s Myers and Chande
or could it be the Haymarket`s 
Not so long ago there lived a council who cared so much for fancy schemes, they spent all the city’s money upon them, and on junkets and on rebranding the city and the like. They gave no thought to their citizens or to the affairs of their city. They had a new idea for every hour of the day and spent most of their time in the pages of the local papers so that everyone might see their wonderful projects.
"We must have lots of developments made from these materials and architecture," thought the council. "When the people see the development, we shall know the clever people from the dunces. That developer must be brought to us at once."
"We will send our faithful old Leader Donald Anderson to see it," thought the council. "He is a very clever man, and no one is more worthy of his office than he."
So good old Donald went into the room where the developer and architect sat with the masterplan.
He stared and stared, and opened his eyes wide."Mercy on us!" he thought. "It’s monstrous” But he said nothing at all."Come a little closer," coaxed the architect. "Is not this a beautiful masterplan? And the buildings- are they not magnificent?" And he pointed to the concrete blocks. Poor old Donald put on his spectacles and bent over the plans, but he could see only a vision from hell!
"Mercy!" he said to himself. "Is it possible that I am unfit for my office? Certainly no one must know it. Am I a dunce? It will never do to say that I cannot see the beauty!""Well sir, what do you think of it?" asked the developer."Oh, it is charming - beautiful," said Donald, as he peered through his spectacles.
"The buildings are gorgeous and the layout is very fine. I shall tell the council that I am much pleased with your work." "We are very glad to hear you say so," said the developer and architects. And they went on talking of the masterplan. They had named it Caltongate, and described the peculiar layout. Donald listened carefully, for he wished to repeat to the Council all that was said.
Soon the developers began a consultation on the masterplan.
"Is this not magnificent masterplan?" asked the developers. And then they praised the gorgeous architecture and explained how it was a once in a generation opportunity for the city, which it certainly was not.
Then all of the council knew that they must view the marvellous masterplan.They went to view it along with Trevor, Donald and Alan, who thinking that the others would see how monstrous it was, all began to cry out at once, "Look, everyone, do you see the beautiful design? And the buildings- aren’t they gorgeous?”"See!" the developer said. "There are the beautiful buildings! Here is the economic argument! It’s an all or nothing deal. You may act as if this will not affect the world heritage status. That is the beauty of it."
"What is this?" thought the Councillors. They could only see a monstrous development not right for the world heritage site! “Are we not fit to be councillors? Am we dunces? If that were known, we should be deposed.""Yes, yes, it is very pretty," said the councillors aloud. "We could not be better pleased!" They smiled and nodded their heads, and stared at the horrific masterplan.
Their officials too, looked and looked, but saw only what the others saw.
So then the people in the city were allowed to gaze at the masterplan for they too wanted to see the magical Caltongate"How handsome the Councils Caltongate is!" they all cried. "What a perfect fit for the World Heritage Site! What marvellous architecture"
And the Council, hearing what they said, shivered, for they knew that their words were true. But it would never do to stop the process; and so they held themselves stiffer than ever.
As the day of the committee came nearer, the PR team worked with might and main.
The developers then pretended to listen again, to the local community, while they drew up the detailed plans. They sent out more promotion all over the city. They wined and dined whoever they had to and Alistair Darling gave money towards their underground heating although this will not serve the peoples housing.
"How well the city will do with this new development." says the Chamber of Commerce? "What a becoming style! What beautiful economic arguments! They are indeed fit for the world heritage site!" The Chamber gave the developer Manish Chande a key position, and the architect was told he could redesign the entire city.
In the following year after the masterplan was approved, Donald and Trevor were not re-elected. But alas Trevor carries on his love for Caltongate in the local press from time to time and Donald now works for the developers’ infamous PR firm PPS. Alan Henderson is still in office and has just recommended that the new planning committee approve the individual plans on the 6th of February.
But now she too is seeing the Council`s New Masterplan -Council leader Jenny Dawe said: "The Caltongate development will breathe new life into a neglected part of the Old Town.".Article
Press Coverage
Scotsman Article OpinionPieceScotsman
PPSGROUP OTHERS
Now this week despite even Unesco saying the scheme should be scrapped the council are still singing its praises
from The Scotsman 6th June 09 -
"A decision on the Caltongate scheme has been considered and agreed by the planning committee. We are of course aware of the comments made by Unesco in their draft report and we await the outcome of the World Heritage Committee later this month."
and today there is a laughable piece in the vain of "jobs can be used to justify any nonsense" in the Evening News that they wrote based on this piece of nonsense