Heritage

Journal on Managing World Heritage

Winter semester 2021.
Masters in World Heritage Studies, Brandenburg University of Technology, Germany.

Work by:

Kavinprakash Madheswaran,

Bahar Madvi Sabet,

Mahyar Meraji Masouleh Moghaddam.

Introduction:
In this paper, we will discuss the scenario of UNESCO's delisting of a world heritage site.
Basically, the debate revolves around how the construction of Outstanding Universal Value and authenticity around a world heritage site helps in getting listed in UNESCO becomes a static point of reference for conservation. And discuss does the conflict of interests between stakeholders in different case studies result in the delisting from the world heritage list.

Case studies:
The very first delisted site was the Arabian Oriyx Sanctuary in Oman, which was delisted
in 2007 after the government opted to conduct hydrocarbon explosive activities at the cost of delisting. This decision reduced the size of the protected area by 90%, destroying the Outstanding Universal Value that was inscribed in 1994. This paves the way for the further delisting of World Heritage Sites in any conflict of interest between the state party and UNESCO(UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2007).

Whereas Dresden’s controversial removal from the world heritage list is different considering the context. Dresden managed to hold world heritage status for only five years but is still considered to retain the prestige, according to experts. The bridge "Waldschlösschen" doesn’t seem to be a state party's ambitious developmental project. Because it is clear that the locals chose to have the crossing at this point, which they could not build back then due to financial and technical constraints of the 19th century (Gaillard’s Lecture, 2021).

The summary of the reasons mentioned in a visual impact study by the Department of Urban Design and Regional Planning of the University of Aachen for delisting Dresden is:
1. "The Waldschlösschen bridge does not fit in with the existing series of Dresden bridges.
2. The Waldschlösschen bridge obscures a number of views of the Dresden skyline and the Elbe valley, which are of historical importance as well as continuing relevance to daily life in the city.
3. The Waldschlösschen bridge cuts into the cohesive landscape of the Elbe river bend at its most sensitive point, splitting it irreversibly into two halves. " (Gaillard’s Lecture, 2021)

Dresden, unlike Arabian Oriyx Sanctuary, it’s evident that the city fabric kept changing over time, in the city’s evolution from a Baroque architecture city to a rebuilt city post-World War II to a cultural landscape now. Everything collectively has value added to its existing fabric that retains its world heritage worthiness. Even re-inscription ispossible under different boundaries or criteria according to WHC.

Dresden (Photography- Kavinprakash Madheswaran)

Streets and stories

"Pretty" The Dresden Frauenkirche, bearing wounds from the past

Artistic frames of recovery

Streets and stories

1/3

Lesson from parties involved:
It is apparent that numerous opportunities for reversing such a trend have gone unnoticed, at the time of the nomination. In the case of Dresden, UNESCO’s approach of seeing development and conservation as two opposites reduces any scope of organic change or development. Both the state party and ICOMOS remained ambiguous in communicating the bridge development project that was under discussion (Schoch, 2014, pp208). The International Mission of experts suggesting tunnel alternatives shows a lack of environmental impact review that could be worse than the existing bridge, as per tunnel opponents. Both the World Heritage Committee and the German Federal Government regret the decision of delisting. On the other hand, the power of decision-making was with the state party and people wanting development or delisting (Schoch, 2014, pp209).

After the Elbe Valley in Dresden, Germany, and the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in Oman, Liverpool, England, is the third property to lose its World Heritage status. Liverpool's historic centre and docklands were inscribed for their role in the development of one of the world's main commerce centres in the 18th and 19th centuries. The facility also showcased cutting-edge advances in contemporary dock technology, transportation systems, and port administration. Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City, which was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2004, had similar issues. Since the project went ahead, along with the construction developments both inside the site and in its buffer zone, they have been detrimental to the site’s authenticity and integrity, leading to delisting (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2021).

These examples clearly show that all the parties need to be aware of any future developmental plans for living sites and landscapes throughout the various stages of
the process, from nomination through inscription to monitoring. This aids in the implementation of a holistic management strategy that bridges development and conservation, benefiting both locals and the international community (Gaillard and
Rodwell, 2015).

Conclusion:
Considering the fact that cultural landscapes are places that can evolve, as they are defined as "works of man or the combined works of nature and man" in Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention, 1972, and they are mentioned as a continuing landscape in which the evolutionary process is in progress in operational guidelines, it gives them the allowance to change. So, in a place where people and society play a vital role, we cannot deny changes and keep the site static (Gaillard’s Lecture, 2021). From all the case studies, it is clear, instead of rigidly retaining the OUV, authenticity and integrity considered at the time of inscription, World Heritage status should be viewed as a long-term commitment incorporating an entirely sustainable development perspective for the benefit of current and future generations, not just for international recognition and short-term economic and tourism return (Ringbeck and Rössler, 2011).

References:
● Eike Albrecht and Bénédicte Gaillard (2015). Procedure for Delisting a Site From the World Heritage List: Is Delisting With Consent or Against the Wish of a State Party Possible? J. of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 3(1).
● Gaillard, B. and Rodwell, D. (2015). A Failure of Process? Comprehending the Issues Fostering Heritage Conflict in Dresden Elbe Valley and Liverpool — Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Sites. The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, 6(1), pp.16–40.
● Gaillard, B. (2014). Conflictive delisting process of a World Heritage Site in Germany: the case of the Dresden Elbe Valley. [Doctoral thesis] Available at:https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4- btu/frontdoor/index/index/start/0/rows/10/sortfield/score/sortorder/desc/searchtype/simple/query/Gaillard/docId/3031 [Accessed 20 Dec. 2021].
● Gaillard, B. Understanding the complex relations of local, national and international dynamics in managing, listing and delisting World Heritage (pdf document). Retrieved from lecture on December 2021. Available at: https://www.b-tu.de/elearning/btu/pluginfile.php/488153/mod_resource/content/0/Benedicte_Gaillard_BTU_Lecture_Dresden_Elbe_Valley_09122021%20-%20Mode%20de%20compatibilite%CC%81.pdf
● Ringbeck, B. and Rössler, M. (2011). Between International Obligations and Local politics: The Case of The Dresden Elbe Valley under the 1972 World Heritage Convention. In: Monument Protection and Urban Development. [online] Berlin:
Federal Institute for Building, Urban and Spatial Research(BBSR), pp.205–211.
Available at: https://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/veroeffentlichungen/izr/2011/3_4/Inhalt/izr-3-4-2011-komplett-dl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1 [Accessed 22 Dec. 2021].
● Schoch, D. (2014). Whose World Heritage? Dresden’s Waldschlößchen Bridge and UNESCO’s Delisting of the Dresden Elbe Valley1. International Journal of Cultural Property, 21(2), pp.199–223.
● UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2007). Oman’s Arabian Oryx Sanctuary : First Site Ever to be Deleted from UNESCO’s World Heritage List. [online] Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/362/ [Accessed 21 Dec. 2021].
● UNESCO World Heritage Centre. (2021). World Heritage Committee deletes Liverpool - Maritime Mercantile City from UNESCO’s World Heritage List. [online]
Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/2314/ [Accessed 25 Dec. 2021].