This brief review critically examines Betty Elizabeth Keough's (2011) perspective on UNESCO's World Heritage Program. Keough's main argument is that the program, while well-intentioned, may have inadvertently caused more harm than good.
She highlights the challenge of identifying and safeguarding valuable sites due to conflicting state interests. Keough also raises concerns about potential biases and political influence in selecting world heritage sites. Her critique underscores the lack of transparency in the decision-making process, raising questions about the committee's choices' integrity.
By Christina U.Feza (M.A Archaeology)
A review of world heritage properties, selection, and distribution Category: Archaeology, Heritage, and Society Edited: July, 2024
This brief review critically examines Betty Elizabeth Keough's (2011) perspective on UNESCO's World Heritage Program. Keough's main argument is that the program, while well-intentioned, may have inadvertently caused more harm than good. She highlights the challenge of identifying and safeguarding valuable sites due to conflicting state interests. Keough also raises concerns about potential biases and political influence in selecting world heritage sites. Her critique underscores the lack of transparency in the decision-making process, raising questions about the committee's choices' integrity.
On the UNESCO site, they have listed three categories: natural, cultural, and mixed sites (see link 1). First, let us deal with the number of sites regionally. There is a noticeable distinction among members regarding the distribution of the 1,223 total sites worldwide, particularly about the level of development of each member's country. This contrast provides valuable insight into the intricate nature of the organization. The strategic placement of various properties in specific regions is well observed (see link 2). Most properties can be found in Western countries, accounting for over 70% of the total (see link 3). China, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain have fifty of the above sites. Not far behind, several states in South America, Asia, and a good number of countries in Europe have over twenty sites each.
Therefore, out of 195 member states, the six countries mentioned above, which have the most sites, only account for a mere 3% ( see link 3).This unevenness raises questions about the guidelines and nomination process at large. Regarding the distribution of sites, the difference becomes even more concerning when considering that there are more states with zero sites, the majority from Africa. Why does a staggering 80% of the continent have no heritage sites? It's important to note that even the most developed African states, such as Ethiopia and South Africa, do not have more than twelve world heritage properties. In order to truly grasp the significance of selecting and safeguarding heritage sites, it is essential to understand what value systems are prioritized.
According to UNESCO (see link 4), cultural sites are leading, followed by natural and mixed cultural and natural. More than 50% of the world heritage list are cultural sites. These sites made it on the list through research study recommendations from various groups of experts, such as historical archaeologists (Keough, 2011, p. 613). Therefore, ideological and materialistic value was given priority when it came to selection. A combined discipline of history and archaeology is highly responsible for the selection of sites in this category. It is important to note that despite using multidisciplinary research methods, historical archeology has always been critiqued for its bias ( Monton- SuWas SS, 2017) and for ignoring research in marginalized communities (Schmidt, P, & Pikirayi, I, 2018). Thus, going back to the distribution of sites worldwide, it renders obvious that studies to identify the historical significance of artifacts or structures from marginalized communities are scarce.
Natural heritage sites account for about 25% of the total, and the value system used for selection in this category is the outstanding universal value (see link 5). These sites of natural wonder or natural beauty with unique characteristics benefit humanity. In other words, it holds equal worth or significance for nearly everyone (see link 7). Also clearly stated in UNESCO guidelines, Section 78 states, "the property has to fulfill the requirements of integrity or authenticity and has a sufficient management and protection framework to guarantee its preservation in order to be deemed of Outstanding Universal Value (see link 8). Looking at the distribution of natural sites regionally can only entail that there are not many claims for this category from Africa or that the committee does not agree with many of their claims, and scholars such as Steiner and Frey have raised concerns (Steiner & Frey, 2011, pp. 4-8). Many researchers have talked about the social and economic benefits that natural sites bring to the area (IUCN, Osipova, E et al., 2014). For example, these sites can create jobs and bring in more money for local businesses through tourism. This is why the imbalance can be seen as a conflict of interests, as was said in the first paragraph. It shall be noted that mixed sites (cultural and natural) hold universal value without acknowledging historical accounts and archaeological interpretations, which scholars have said to have bias and inaccuracies.
In Betty Elizabeth Keough's (2011) critique of the criteria lists, her arguments remained relevant twelve years later as she provided a detailed explanation, highlighting the lack of definitive guidelines for the selection process and that suggestions or nominations are not merely suggestions but are backed by substantial funding from government and non-governmental institutions, private bodies, and individuals at large (Keough, 2011; p. 600-613). The World Heritage Selection Committee comprises 21 regionally even states (see link 6), and they receive requests for financial assistance to support World Heritage sites' protection, conservation, presentation, or rehabilitation and have the full power to decide who gets it. Keough points out the need for more transparency in the decision-making process, leading to questions about the integrity of the committee's choices; her analysis seems to indicate that the committee can prioritize specific projects over others and that funding plays a major role. Frankly putting it, funding, or lack thereof, may be the major reason for the regional imbalance.
All in all, UNESCO's world heritage program, as part of the United Nations, consistently strives to promote equality in its operations. However, the question lingers about what it will take to level the playing field regarding global politics and, in this case, extend heritage sites to marginalized landscapes.
Bibliography
Keough, E.B (2011).Heritage in Peril: A Critique of UNESCO's World Heritage Program. 10 WASH. U. GLOBAL STUD. L. REV. 593 (2011), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law globalstudies/vol10/iss3/5 Monton-Subias S, Hernando A. Modern Colonialism, Eurocentrism and Historical Archaeology: Some Engendered Thoughts. European Journal of Archaeology. 2018;21(3):455-471. doi:10.1017/eaa.2017.83
Osipova, E., Wilson, L., Blaney, R., Shi, Y., Fancourt, M., Strubel, M., Salvaterra, T., Brown, C., Verschuuren, B. (2014). The benefits of natural World Heritage: Identifying and assessing ecosystem services and benefits provided by the world's most iconic natural places. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. vi + 58 pp
Steiner, Lasse & Frey, Bruno. (2011). Imbalance of World Heritage List: Did the UNESCO Strategy Work? SSRN Electronic Journal. 10.2139/ssrn.1807889. Schmidt, Peter & Pikirayi, Innocent. (2018). Will Historical Archaeology Escape Its Western Prejudices to Become Relevant to Africa? Archaeologies. 14. 10.1007/s11759-018-9342-1.
Links
1: UNESCO World Heritage Centre - World Heritage List
2: UNESCO World Heritage Centre - Global Strategy
3: UNESCO World Heritage Centre - The World Heritage Committee
4: UNESCO World Heritage Centre - World Heritage List Statistics
5: Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls - UNESCO World Heritage Centre
6: UNESCO World Heritage Centre - The World Heritage Committee
7: A system of universal values, applicable to all human beings - Latest blog articles - Maastricht University
8: UNESCO World Heritage Centre - Compendium
Suggestions
Meskell, L., Liuzza, C., Bertacchini, E., & Saccone, D. (2015). Multilateralism and UNESCO World Heritage: decision-making, States Parties, and political processes. International journal of heritage studies, 21(5), 423-440.
Harrison, R. (2012). Heritage: critical approaches. Routledge.
Frequently Asked Questions about "A review of world heritage properties, selection, and distribution"
What is the main argument presented in the review?
The review critically examines Betty Elizabeth Keough's perspective on UNESCO's World Heritage Program. Keough argues that the program, while well-intentioned, may inadvertently cause more harm than good, highlighting the challenge of identifying and safeguarding valuable sites due to conflicting state interests and potential biases in selection.
What are the three categories of sites listed by UNESCO?
UNESCO lists three categories: natural, cultural, and mixed sites (both cultural and natural).
What is the main concern regarding the distribution of World Heritage sites?
There is a noticeable uneven distribution of the 1,223 sites worldwide, with a significant concentration in Western countries. A small number of countries hold a large proportion of sites, while many, particularly in Africa, have none. This raises questions about the fairness of the guidelines and nomination process.
Which countries have the most World Heritage sites?
China, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain have the highest number of sites, each with over fifty properties.
What value system is prioritized in the selection of cultural sites?
Ideological and materialistic value is given priority, often based on research study recommendations from experts, such as historical archaeologists. The combined discipline of history and archaeology is highly responsible for the selection of sites in this category.
What value system is used for the selection of natural heritage sites?
The "outstanding universal value" is used. This refers to sites of natural wonder or beauty with unique characteristics that benefit humanity. The property must also fulfill requirements of integrity or authenticity and have sufficient management and protection to guarantee its preservation.
What concerns did Betty Elizabeth Keough raise about the World Heritage Selection Committee?
Keough highlighted the lack of definitive guidelines for the selection process and the significant funding involved in nominations. She also pointed out the need for more transparency in the decision-making process and suggested that funding may play a major role in the committee's choices.
What potential benefits do natural sites bring?
Natural sites can create jobs and bring in more money for local businesses through tourism.
What are some suggested further readings on the topic?
The review suggests further readings by Meskell et al. (2015), Harrison (2012), and Bertacchini et al. (2017) for deeper understanding on multilateralism, critical approaches to heritage, and power dynamics within the UNESCO World Heritage Committee.
What is the concluding thought?
While UNESCO strives for equality, the question remains about what it will take to level the playing field and extend heritage sites to marginalized landscapes.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Christina Feza (Autor:in), 2024, Betty Elizabeth Keough's perspective on UNESCO's World Heritage Program, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/1496105