While most travellers are probably aware of the existence of World Heritage Sites (WHS), I doubt whether many know their true background, identity and significance. Many may be surprised that the sites they are visiting are so designated or will discover only afterwards that the extraordinary place they have just visited is a designated world heritage site. Such happened to oldgreytravel on a recent stopover in Nancy, in eastern France, where the three, great squares of Count Stanislas’ C18 town planning (pictured) have World Heritage Site status. A worthy attribution, but not one that I was aware of until visiting. It led me to wonder whether World Heritage Sites could be a useful way to fashion a trip around an area or region. It would certainly give focus to what may otherwise be a rather random tour.
The history of world heritage sites is relatively recent. It was only in 1972 that UNESCO adopted the principle in a Convention of that year. Since then, 193 state parties have ratified the Convention and some 1121 properties have been inscribed onto the list. The first was included in 1978 and the first in the UK in 1986. Designations range from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe and from the Taj Mahal to Heads Smashed in Buffalo Jump in Canada. They vary from individual built structures (Acropolis) to more informal groups of interest (Catalan Romanesque Churches of the Vall de Boi) to areas of natural significance (Iguaza (Falls) National Park, Argentina) – each represents the “outstanding universal values” of UNESCO’s mission to proclaim and protect the most significant cultural and natural properties of our planet.
The pattern of WHS’s is interesting and reflects the political and cultural values of the time, including some would say an underlying bias to European culture and history. This last charge seems harsh as entries are put forward by the state parties for inclusion and it is inevitable, perhaps, that richer countries with more stable and organized governments and infrastructure are more likely to have the time and resources to prepare sites for submission. The list does though have an undoubtedly Eurocentric feel with Italy (54), being the most represented nation, Spain (47), France and Germany (44 each) and the UK (31) close behind – the only challenge to this being China (53), India (37) and Mexico (35). At the other end of the scale, Bhutan has no sites (surely an omission to be rectified) and the Congo, one site. 47% of the sites are in Europe and North America, 24% in Asia and the Pacific, while less than 9% are in Africa and 8% in the Arab states.
What does this all mean for the independent traveller though? Well, one advantage is that independent travel can seem rather unfocused without a purpose, a reason for being there. The WHS designation tells you that somebody (UNESCO) has decided that this site has “outstanding universal value” for humanity. Whether you agree or not is part of the fun. Whoever appreciates the cultural value of the Taj Mahal may be less impressed by the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape. Nevertheless, people more informed than me have assessed these site’s qualities and agreed them as having outstanding universal value. So, maybe a better understanding of an area’s history, culture and development would help one to better appreciate a site’s full significance and this cannot be a bad thing for those travelling with an open and inquisitive mind.
