Is UNESCO World Heritage recognition a blessing or burden? Evidence from developing Asian countries

Abstract

To both acknowledge and protect many cultural heritage expressions, sites and practices, UNESCO has instituted three conventions; Tangible Heritage, Intangible Heritage and Diversity of Cultural Expression. If a site/practice receives this UNESCO badge, it is an acknowledgment of its universal cultural and/or natural value as well as recognition of the need to protect it from harm. However, the UNESCO badge is an important marketing tool in world tourism and its presence ensures many more visitors to a site/practice that is UNESCO recognised. With increasing wealth and mobility, many more people are travelling than was possible even a decade ago. Increasing numbers of visitors can negatively impact on a site/practice as well as affect the local culture and integrity of a region, particularly in developing countries. So, is the UNESCO recognition a blessing or burden? This paper addresses the challenges that ensue from the UNESCO conventions by considering three UNESCO World Heritage case study sites in Asian developing countries. In particular, it seeks to understand the extent to which UNESCO's World Heritage approach protects or further undermines the cultural heritage sustainability of these sites.

Introduction

Part of the mandate of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is to protect man-made treasures that exist in our world. Three conventions passed by the UNESCO to ensure this are titled:

• Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972);

• Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003);

• Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expression (2005) [1].

In UNESCO's Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) under Article 2 it notes,

“‘Safeguarding’ means measures aimed at ensuring the viability of the intangible cultural heritage, including the identification, documentation, research, preservation, protection, promotion, enhancement, transmission, particularly through formal and non-formal education, as well as the revitalization of the various aspects of such heritage.” [1].

So here is the dilemma. While there is the acknowledgement of the need to ‘protect’ the tangible and intangible cultural heritage¹ in this clause, at the same time there is a desire to make it ‘viable’ and ‘revitalise’ it. This could be seen as a way of making a site/culture come alive and not be a ‘museum’ or it could be interpreted as a way of economically exploiting the site/culture while trying to maintain its unique characteristics. Another dimension, however, is the philosophy behind the awarding of the UNESCO status and the interests it serves. For instance, Frey and Steiner [2] observe that the UNESCO Conventions have so far mostly benefited the more affluent nations. This is also noted by Bertacchini et al. [3]. Pyykkönen [4] discusses the UNESCO Convention on Cultural expression as another example of the ‘commodification’ of culture while D’Eramo [5] asserts that receiving UNESCO heritage status is the ‘death knell’ of a city/place.

Within Article 13 of the UNESCO Intangible Heritage Convention, there is a recommendation to States (Nations) awarded that they should:

“[…] adopt a general policy aimed at promoting the function of the intangible cultural heritage in society, and at integrating the safeguarding of such heritage into planning programmes.” [1].

This says clearly that on the awarding of Intangible Heritage Status there is an obligation by the State to introduce various measures to allow for proper planning as part of the safeguarding of the practices.

However, the awarding of an UNESCO status immediately bestows a national and international profile on the site or practice. While the recognition acknowledges something that it is unique in the world, it also draws the world's attention to this uniqueness. Depending on the nature of the site/heritage/practice, it is then in an excellent position to be marketed by the nation concerned as a special and attractive tourist destination. It is noted that,

“Being in the UNESCO List is highly desired by many actors as it brings prominence and monetary revenue […]” ([2]: 560).

It is seen as an avenue for increased revenue, notably from tourism, but also from various agencies that provide much needed funds to poorer nations for restoration or conservation processes. The visitors may bring economic prosperity to a community that was formerly subsistent, yet their presence may simultaneously destroy or undermine unique features of the local culture. Over time, a co-dependent economic relationship between the community and the tourists develops so that the community cannot survive without the presence of the tourists. Ironically, this then affects the attractions of the destination as it is increasingly given over to serving the needs of the tourist, and by doing, loses its intrinsic difference or local culture.

Moreover, greater wealth and cheaper travel have enabled the numbers of people travelling around the world to grow exponentially. Gonzalez-Tirados [6] observes that from 1950 to 2008, the number of world-wide tourists increased from 25 million to 924 million ([6]: 1589). Many of these visitors are in large groups and herded from one destination to another with little local engagement or understanding. In addition, hotels, casinos and resorts are then built near these significant sites for the tourists’ accommodation and entertainment. Other forms of infrastructure development follow quickly; major roads, shops, bars, restaurants, etc. Often the local residents become entirely dependent on tourism for making their living and their former local trades, occupations and industries fall by the wayside [7]. Tourism changes the nature of the destination dramatically and probably irreversibly. Kishore Rau, Director General of the UNESCO World Heritage (WH) Centre has commented that:

“In tandem with this recognition of our heritage – and the appeal of these sites often enhanced by World Heritage inscription – the tourism industry has exploded at a phenomenal rate, resulting in unprecedented numbers of visitors to sites both accessible and remote, compounding the issue of preserving sites even as we express our appreciation for them” ([8]: 2).

The potential negative impact of increased tourism is acknowledged here by Rau [8]. But there is an inherent contradiction in the position of UNESCO when they are aware of the dangers of increased promotion of a site, despite the damage that occurs. If on one side, UNESCO's objective is to preserve the natural and cultural (tangible and intangible) heritage of outstanding relevance for the future generations, on the other, the UNESCO assignment is also to promote “an appropriate equitable balance between conservation, sustainability and development” (Budapest Declaration [9]) in the UNESCO sites. The success of this initiative relies though on the degree of engagement and awareness of the local community [10]. In reviewing the management processes of six world cultural heritage sites, Landorf [11] notes that they rarely factor in consultation or broader sustainability issues. Perhaps an inherent danger in the awarding of UNESCO Status is that it takes the planning and control away from the local community so that the locale becomes a ‘plaything’ for national and international interests. The community can then be excluded permanently from the conversation. This is further noted by Salazar [12] where it is observed that the challenge is to match the demands of tourism to local needs, while making it sustainable and viable. Tourism has many facets that not only directly affect a cultural heritage site but the entire community and environment that surrounds it. It is for these reasons that we focus on the impact of tourism on UNESCO cultural heritage sites, seeing its uncontrolled expansion as a threat to their short and long-term sustainability.