World Heritage for the Nation: 
Identifying, Protecting and Promoting our World Heritage   
A Consultation Paper   
2 December 2008   

Our aim is to improve the quality of life for all      through cultural and sporting activities, support the pursuit of excellence, and champion the tourism, creative and leisure industries.

Contents
            Chapter 1: World Heritage Policy Review	4
Chapter 2 World Heritage Sites – current position…………………………………….…..7
Chapter 3 WHC position on future nominations………………………………………...16
Chapter 4 Costs and benefits of World Heritage Site status…………………..………..19
Chapter 5 Future nominations for World Heritage Site status…………………….…….26 
            Chapter 6 Alternative designations. ……………..………………………..……..…..……34
            Chapter 7 Future protection, management and promotion of World Heritage Sites... 36 
Chapter 8 Equalities Impact Assessment…………………………………………………43
Chapter 9 Next Steps and how to respond………………………………………………..44

Annex A Code of Practice on Consultations………………………………………………46
Annex B Tentative List Submission Format………………………….,,...………………..47
Annex C Guidance for aspiring sites………………………………..……………………..49

Chapter 1:	World Heritage Policy Review
Introduction

1.1	There are 27 World Heritage Sites in the UK and its overseas territories.  Stonehenge and the Tower of London are among them, together with a broad range of sites from the Heart of Neolithic Orkney to Henderson Island in the South Pacific. They form part of a much wider World Heritage List of 878 cultural and natural heritage sites recognised by UNESCO as being of outstanding universal value under the terms of the 1972 Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (the World Heritage Convention). By joining the Convention, the UK government has undertaken to identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit to future generations such places. 
1.2	Should we seek to add further sites to the List? There is certainly increasing interest across the UK in putting forward new nominations, and the number of aspiring sites grows each year. World Heritage Site status is seen as highly desirable, not just in terms of its undoubted prestige but also for the benefits it is thought to bring in terms of increased tourism and regeneration.
1.3	But there are other aspects to World Heritage Site status, not widely known, which for some sites would make the prospect of applying less attractive.  Perhaps the most important is that such status is not bestowed as a prize, but as recognition that a site is of sufficient importance to be the responsibility of the international community as a whole.  With such recognition come responsibilities – increasing in recent years – to protect and maintain the site and its surroundings to the highest standards.  Judgements on what may or may not be appropriate will be made by international as well as UK stakeholders in each site. Sites in heavily populated areas have always faced difficult choices to achieve a balance between conservation and development, but once World Heritage Site status is won such choices are no longer entirely theirs to make, as demonstrated by UNESCO missions to London and Liverpool in 2006 and to Bath and Edinburgh this year.  
1.4	As competition for World Heritage Site status increases the application process has become more demanding, and countries such as the UK which are already well represented on the World Heritage List have been encouraged for many years to slow down or suspend their nominations. 
1.5	UK policies on nominations were last looked at in 1999. In the light of increasing concerns over representation on the World Heritage List and changes since then in the ways in which the Convention is applied, it seems right to look again at the costs and benefits of World Heritage Site status and to pull together these strands into an overall review of our policy approach to World Heritage.
Terms of reference for the review
The review had the following terms of reference:

•	To explore the extent to which the UK’s current approach to World Heritage supports the interests of the UK Government and those of the Governments of the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories in protecting and promoting their cultural and natural heritage; their wider strategic priorities; and their international goals, particularly in relation to UNESCO.

•	To examine the costs and benefits, rights and responsibilities of World Heritage Site status, the balance currently achieved between them, and the implications for the future management, promotion and funding of such sites.

•	To consider what measures might be taken to clarify and/or strengthen protection for World Heritage Sites.

•	To recommend a policy on making future nominations for World Heritage Site status.
Who has been involved and how

1.6	DCMS set up an internal Project Board and Project Team to manage the review. It also engaged the support of wider partners and stakeholders through a Steering Group and Advisory Group.  
Steering Group
1.7	The following departments/organisations were invited to join the Steering Group for the review:

Cadw
Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland
English Heritage
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Historic Scotland
Joint Nature Conservation Committee 
Manx National Heritage
Ministry of Justice
Scottish Executive 
States of Guernsey
States of Jersey
United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO 

1.8	The Steering Group met at key stages throughout the review.

Advisory Group

1.9	The following departments/organisations – all key stakeholders in World Heritage - were invited to join an Advisory Group in addition to the members of the Steering Group:

Department for Communities and Local Government
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Heritage Lottery Fund
Historic Houses Association
ICOMOS-UK
IUCN (The World Conservation Union) UK National Committee
Ministry of Defence
Local Authority World Heritage Forum
National Trust
National Trust for Scotland
Natural England
Planning Officers Society
VisitBritain
British Council
World Heritage Coordinators 

1.10	The Advisory Group met twice, first to inform the cost benefit analysis and then to advise on its conclusions.  World Heritage Coordinators also fed into the process in the course of their regular meetings throughout the year. 

1.11	There are a range of other organisations and groups with an interest in World Heritage and it is also of public interest. The purpose of this paper is therefore to open up the debate to a wider audience.
Cost benefit analysis

1.12	In February 2007 DCMS with its funding partners Historic Scotland and Cadw invited tenders for a cost benefit analysis of World Heritage Site status. Price WaterhouseCoopers were awarded this contract in May 2007 and submitted their final report in December 2007.

Chapter 2:		World Heritage Sites – current position
What are World Heritage Sites? 

2.1	The UK joined the UNESCO World Heritage Convention in 1984. The Convention established the World Heritage List as a means of recognising that some places, both natural and cultural, are of sufficient importance to be the responsibility of the international community as a whole. By joining the Convention, nation states are pledged to care for the World Heritage Sites in their territory as part of protecting their national heritage, as well as to protection of their cultural and natural heritage as a whole.

2.2	The Convention is overseen by the inter-governmental UNESCO World Heritage Committee. The Committee is advised by three international professional bodies. ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) which advises on cultural sites. ICCROM (International Centre for the Preservation and Restorations of Cultural Property) is an international governmental organisation (IGO), of which the UK is a member, which advises primarily on training and capacity development for conservation of cultural sites, while IUCN (World Conservation Union) is a hybrid IGO/NGO which advises on natural sites. Both ICOMOS and IUCN have national committees in the UK.

2.3	The Committee publishes Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (http://whc/unesco.org/en/guidelines/), which set out procedures, for inscription of sites, on the World Heritage List, detail criteria for the judgement of ‘outstanding universal value’ and provides guidance on the submission of nominations. 

2.4	The UK Government’s responsibilities for the Convention including nominating sites for World Heritage status are exercised by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Individual nominations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be identified and put forward as UK nominations by their respective First Ministers via DCMS.  Nominations for Overseas Territories should be identified and put forward by the Foreign Secretary and for the Crown Dependencies by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice via DCMS.

2.5	In England, DCMS works closely with English Heritage, its statutory adviser on the application of the Convention. DCMS is also committed to working with wider partners on World Heritage. Public bodies include other government departments, the devolved administrations, Historic Scotland, Cadw, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Crown Dependencies, and the UK National Commission for UNESCO. NGOs include ICOMOS UK and the Local Authorities World Heritage Forum (LAWHF).
What sites are eligible?

2.6	State Parties are invited to submit, from their national Tentative Lists of sites for future nomination, properties considered to be of ‘Outstanding Universal Value’ for inscription on the World Heritage List. Outstanding Universal Value means cultural and/or natural significance which is as exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. 

2.7	The Convention is not intended to ensure the protection of all properties of great interest, importance or value, but only for a selective list of the most outstanding of these from an international viewpoint. This means that a property of national or even of international importance will not automatically be inscribed on the World Heritage List.

                 Outstanding Universal Value

The World Heritage Committee considers properties to have Outstanding Universal Value if they meet one or more of the following criteria:

(i)         represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;

(ii)	exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;

(iii)	bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;

(iv)	be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;

(v)	be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;

(vi)	be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance.(The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria);

(vii)	contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;

(viii)	be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth’s history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;

(ix)	be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;

(x)	contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.

2.8	There is emphasis on the need for comparative studies of sites (internationally as well as nationally) in order to select sites of universal importance, particularly where a site falls into an already well-represented category.
  
2.9	The protection, management, authenticity and integrity of properties are also important considerations in their selection for inscription on the World Heritage List.  These requirements are explained in the 2008 Operational Guidelines – (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf) for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. The World Heritage Committee sees these aspects of a site as part of its outstanding universal value.

Further information on World Heritage Committee priorities is provided in Chapter 3
Where are our sites?

The UK currently has 27 World Heritage Sites:

•	Durham Cathedral and Castle (inscribed 1986; extended 2008) 
•	Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd (1986) 
•	Studley Royal Park including the ruins of Fountains Abbey (1986) 
•	St Kilda (1986 extended in 2004 and 2005) (natural and cultural) 
•	Giant’s Causeway and Causeway coast (1986) (natural site) 
•	Ironbridge Gorge (1986) 
•	Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (1986) 
•	Blenheim Palace and Park (1987) 
•	Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and St Margaret’s Church (1987, extended                 2008) 
•	City of Bath (1987) 
•	Frontiers of the Roman Empire (a transnational site incorporating Hadrian’s Wall (1987), the Upper German Raetian Limes (2005) and the Antonine Wall (2008))
•	The Tower of London (1988) 
•	Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine’s Abbey and St Martin’s Church (1988) 
•	Henderson Island, South Pacific Ocean (1988) (natural site) 
•	Old and New Towns of Edinburgh (1995) 
•	Gough and Inaccessible Islands, South Atlantic Ocean (1995, extended 2004) (natural site) 
•	Maritime Greenwich (1997) 
•	Heart of Neolithic Orkney (1999) 
•	Historic Town of St George and Related Fortifications Bermuda (2000) 
•	Blaenavon Industrial Landscape (2000) 
•	Dorset and East Devon Coast (2001) (natural site) 
•	Derwent Valley Mills (2001) 
•	New Lanark (2001) 
•	Saltaire (2001) 
•	Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (2003) 
•	Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City (2004)
•	Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape (2006)

                        Future nominations

In addition, we have already announced our proposed nominations for the next four years which are as follows:

•	Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal – nominated in January 2008 for consideration in
     July 2009

•	Darwin’s Landscape Laboratory – to be re-submitted in January 2009 for consideration in July 2010; 

•	Twin Monastery of Wearmouth and Jarrow – to be nominated in January 2010 for consideration in July 2011.

How were our sites identified?

2.10	The World Heritage Committee requires each nation state to submit a Tentative List of proposals likely to be put forward over a five to ten year period.  Nominations to the World Heritage List are not considered unless the nominated property has already been included on the State Party’s Tentative List.  State Parties are encouraged to re-examine and resubmit their Tentative Lists at least every ten years.
2.11	The UK’s current Tentative List, published in 1999, – from which ten sites have already been inscribed - derives from a review announced by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in October 1997. He was advised on English sites, and those from the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, by a group of experts set up at his request by English Heritage, the Government’s statutory adviser within England on the built and archaeological environment. His colleagues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland made their own arrangements for consultation. There was however close liaison between all involved producing integrated proposals for the UK as a whole. 
2.12	Sites proposed for inclusion were selected to represent themes and topics in which the UK, in whole or in part, had made outstanding contributions to the world’s heritage. These sites were the subject of widespread public consultation in the latter part of 1998. Following consideration of the responses, in April 1999 the Secretary of State announced the names of the sites within the UK and its Overseas Territories which would form the new Tentative List.

How do sites from the Tentative List get onto the World Heritage List?

2.13	DCMS in consultation with the heritage agencies, the Devolved Administrations, Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories closely monitors progress on the development of nomination bids for sites on the current UK Tentative List. On the basis of an assessment of the robustness of bids and their potential readiness for submission to UNESCO, and on the advice of English Heritage, the Government's statutory advisor on World Heritage issues, decisions on the order of future nominations are made by Ministers. Nomination of a site in any given year is dependent on preparation of the nomination document and the management plan being sufficiently advanced to meet UNESCO’s deadline for submission and may be subject to change if the World Heritage Committee refers any preceding UK nomination back to us for further consideration.

2.14	Before 1997, all nominations were prepared by the relevant cultural or natural heritage agency in the country concerned. Since 1999, nominations in England and Wales have been prepared by local partnerships, normally led by the relevant local authority and also containing representatives of the site owners and government agencies. These partnerships are supported by expertise and some funding from the relevant national natural or cultural heritage agency. 

2.15	After a nomination is presented there is an 18 month period of evaluation by one of UNESCO’s expert advisory bodies (IUCN for natural nominations and ICOMOS for cultural), before a final decision is made by the inter-governmental World Heritage Committee at its annual meeting.  Decisions on inscription to the World Heritage List rest solely with the Committee.  The process of preparation of the nomination document through the various assessment stages, nationally and internationally, to final decision by the World Heritage Committee can take at least three years and most nominations have taken longer than this.

What sites remain on our Tentative List?

2.16	The sites which remain on our 1999 Tentative List are:

•	Chatham Naval Dockyard 
•	The Lake District 
•	Darwin’s Landscape Laboratory
•	The Twin Monastery of Wearmouth and Jarrow
•	Pontcysyllte Aqueduct
•	Manchester, Trafford and Salford 
•	The New Forest 
•	Great Western Railway 
•	Shakespeare’s Stratford 
•	Wash and North Norfolk Coast 
•	The Cairngorm Mountains 
•	The Flow Country 
•	The Forth Rail Bridge 
•	Mount Stewart Gardens 
•	Fountains Cavern, Anguilla 
•	The Fortress of Gibraltar

2.17	While some of these sites are actively developing their bids, not all of the sites on the Tentative List still wish to proceed to nomination.
How do we look after our World Heritage Sites?
Protection
2.18	World Heritage Sites are primarily protected via the UK planning framework and World Heritage Sites are a key material consideration in determining planning applications.  From October 2008 World Heritage Sites  are included as  Article 1 (5) Land under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995
2.19	In England, World Heritage Sites are protected under the terms of Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1), Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 (PPG 15) and the policies adopted in Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and local authority development plans.
2.20	In Scotland Scottish Planning Policy 23: Planning and the Historic Environment (2008), is the equivalent planning guidance in respect of the built and cultural heritage while NPPG 14 Natural Heritage (currently under review) provides the relevant guidance for the natural environment. 
2.21	In Wales, the Welsh Office Circular 61/96, Planning and the Historic Environment provides the equivalent guidance for the protection of the built and cultural heritage. 
2.22	In Northern Ireland, Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6), Planning, Archaeology and the Built Environment covers World Heritage
2.23	At present, throughout the UK listed historic buildings and scheduled ancient monuments and conservation areas are protected by law, but no additional statutory controls follow from the inscription of a site onto the World Heritage List. Inscription does, however, highlight the outstanding international importance of the site as a key material consideration to be taken into account by all UK local planning authorities in determining planning and listed building consent applications, and by Ministers in determining cases on appeal or following call-in.
2.24	Each regional and local authority concerned, taking account of World Heritage Site status designation and other relevant statutory designations, are required to  formulate specific planning policies for protecting these sites and include these policies in their spatial strategies and development plans.  Such policies should reflect the fact that these sites have been designated for their Outstanding Universal Value, and they should place great weight on the need to protect them.  It follows that development proposals must be scrutinised for their likely effect on the site or its setting in the longer term.  Significant development proposals will generally require formal environmental impact assessment.
2.25	Each of the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories make their own arrangements for spatial planning and the protection of natural and cultural heritage. On the Isle of Man for example there are at present no World Heritage Sites, but sites which are considered on the island as having potential for this recognition have been explicitly recognised in the appropriate local spatial planning documents.
2.26	Plans to enhance the future protection of World Heritage Sites are covered separately in Chapter 7.

Management

2.27	DCMS represents the UK State Party in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention and chairs an Interdepartmental Group on World Heritage which brings together its main partners and advisers. Different arrangements apply to managing World Heritage Sites according to the arrangements in place for managing cultural and natural heritage more generally. 
Advisory bodies

2.28	The UK Government is advised on World Heritage issues by a number of official bodies. 
2.29	English Heritage is DCMS’s statutory advisor on issues affecting the built heritage in England and also advises on policy aspects of the World Heritage Convention. Cadw, Historic Scotland and the Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service advise their own governments while the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories have varied arrangements. 
2.30	The UK National Commission for UNESCO is an independent civil society organisation set up by HM Government in 2004 as the focal point in the UK for policies relating to UNESCO. It is establishing a role in World Heritage issues, with a focus on raising awareness of World Heritage in communities and schools. 
2.31	The Joint Nature Conservation Committee advises all parts of the UK and its Overseas Territories on issues affecting natural heritage, while each administration also calls on the advice of its national natural heritage body.
2.32	The Government and its agencies can also call on the services of NGOs. The Local Authority World Heritage Forum (LAWHF) helps local authorities play their part in protecting, conserving and presenting the UK World Heritage Sites. The UK branch of the International Council on Monuments and Sites, ICOMOS UK, is part-funded by English Heritage, Cadw and Historic Scotland to advise on World Heritage matters such as capacity development and standard setting.  ICOMOS UK coordinates a regular forum for World Heritage Coordinators in the UK to share best practice.

Management plans

2.33.	All UK World Heritage Sites have management plans showing how their Outstanding Universal Value will be preserved. Such plans help ensure the preservation of the site by establishing a framework for decision-making. The process of developing the management plan brings together all the key stakeholders to agree a common vision for the future of the site. As a result, working links are reinforced and new projects emerge. 
Periodic reporting

2.34	Governments must report to UNESCO every six years on the state of conservation of World Heritage Sites in their territory. The World Heritage Committee then decides whether measures are needed to resolve any recurrent problems. DCMS last submitted a Periodic Report in two parts in December 2004 and December 2005. Since then, there has been considerable follow-up work including the preparation of short Statements of Significance and minor boundary changes for a number of sites.
Notification and Reactive Monitoring
2.35	Governments are required to inform UNESCO World Heritage Committee of any significant developments which might affect a World Heritage Site or its setting.  Third parties can also contact the UNESCO World Heritage Centre directly. Following consideration and consultation with national governments and its Advisory Bodies, the World Heritage Centre can make a State of Conservation Report to the annual meeting of the inter-governmental UNESCO World Heritage Committee. 
2.36	The Committee can, in serious cases, commission further reports, with or without a mission to the site concerned. Failure to satisfy the WH Committee on such issues can result in a site being placed on the List of World Heritage In Danger with conditions for improvement attached.  If the Committee ultimately decides that the outstanding universal value for which the site was inscribed has been lost, the site may be de-listed. 
Funding

2.37	The UK contributes around £130,000 to the Committee’s World Heritage Fund every year. State Parties can apply to the World Heritage Committee for international assistance from the Fund where adequate resources cannot be secured at national level. In practice, however, priority is given to requests for assistance for sites on the World Heritage in Danger List and to requests from developing countries and low income economies.
2.38	In Scotland ‘The Heart of Neolithic Orkney’ is in the care of Scottish Ministers, the City of Edinburgh Council and Historic Scotland fund Edinburgh World Heritage and the Agency funds co-ordinators for New Lanark and the Antonine Wall. In the rest of the UK government does not identify specific funds for World Heritage Sites, which are funded from normal government budgets available for conservation. 
2.39	Most basic costs of maintenance and management are met by the owners of the sites, the majority of whom are private in the urban sites, but also include voluntary organisations, local and national government and its agencies, using their normal funding streams. 
2.40	Capital costs of conservation or the provision of facilities are met from a variety of sources including national and local government, the Heritage Lottery Fund, economic regeneration funds, including the European Union, funds available for agri-environmental schemes and the private sector. Over £268 million of Lottery funding has been allocated to World Heritage Sites in the UK since 1994. More recently Regional Development Agencies have played a significant funding role in some instances, usually funding discrete activities and studies. 
Awareness building and education

2.41	The World Heritage Committee encourages and supports the development of educational materials, activities and programmes. The Secretariat, in cooperation with the UNESCO education sector and other partners, produces and publishes a World Heritage Educational Resource Kit, ‘World Heritage in Young Hands’ for use in secondary schools around the world. State Parties are encouraged to develop educational activities related to World Heritage with, wherever possible, the participation of schools, universities, museums and other local and national educational authorities.  
2.42	The Committee emphasises that education is not just about school children, and that opportunities to improve knowledge of the history and significance of World Heritage Sites should be open to everyone.
2.43	In the UK World Heritage Sites are not specifically included within the National Curriculum, but most sites have educational material and outreach programmes. Some sites have run programmes with local schools.
2.44	There is no joint strategy for building awareness of World Heritage Sites.  Individual sites have local initiatives. 
2.45	The principal source of information on World Heritage Sites is the website of UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre (whc.unesco.org). Information on sites in the UK and overseas territories is dispersed between a number of websites including those of DCMS, English Heritage, Visit Britain, Historic Scotland, Cadw, the Northern Ireland Environment and Heritage Service, the UK National Commission for UNESCO, ICOMOS UK and the Local Authority World Heritage Forum. DCMS have established a World Heritage Portal at http://www.ukworldheritage.org.uk which contains useful information and links to other sites. 

Should we identify any more World Heritage Sites?
2.46	With 27 sites on the World Heritage List the UK is joint seventh on the list of well-represented nations in terms of the number of sites. Although the time has come for us to review our Tentative List and possibly to identify some new sites, we should first consider whether it is necessary or worthwhile to continue adding more. 
2.47	To help us answer this question we have examined the position of the World Heritage Committee and its advisers; the findings of an independent study we have commissioned into the costs and benefits of World Heritage Site status; and the advice of a range of stakeholders with an interest in World Heritage.  Our findings are set out in the following chapters.

Chapter 3:	World Heritage Committee position on future nominations
3.1	We need to ensure that there is wide understanding among aspiring sites of the nature of the World Heritage List, the reasons for establishing it and the factors which will be taken into account by the World Heritage Committee in determining which properties will ultimately be inscribed. The increasing number and nature of sites being accepted onto the List may make WHS status seem more achievable, but in reality the reverse is true.  
3.2	There are currently 878 World Heritage Sites spread through the territories of 145 of the 185 states who belong to the World Heritage Convention.  This means that 40 member states have no World Heritage Sites.  At the other extreme, five European countries have 176 World Heritage Sites between them (Italy 43; Spain 40, Germany 33; France 33: UK 27), around 20% of the total.  Altogether, 435 of the 878 World Heritage Sites are in Europe.
3.3	This geographical imbalance has been a matter of concern to the World Heritage Committee for most of its existence.  The Committee has also been concerned by the imbalance between natural (174) sites and cultural (679) (the remaining 25 sites are inscribed under both natural and cultural criteria).  There are also marked imbalances in the types of cultural properties inscribed.  As long ago as 1993, an ICOMOS study identified that Europe, historic towns and religious monuments, Christianity, historical periods and ‘elitist’ architecture (in relation to vernacular) were all over –represented on the World Heritage List; whereas, all living cultures, and especially traditional cultures, were underrepresented. (http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/)
3.4	These imbalances have not been corrected since then, despite the adoption in 1994 by the World Heritage Committee of the Global Strategy for a Balanced, Representative and Credible World Heritage List.  By adopting the Global Strategy, the World Heritage Committee wanted to broaden the definition of World Heritage the better to reflect the full spectrum of our world’s cultural and natural treasures and to provide a comprehensive framework and operational methodology for implementing the World Heritage Convention. 
3.5	Among the action points in the strategy was the identification of certain themes as having high potential to complete gaps in representation. These should be   considered in their broad anthropological context through time:
	
	HUMAN COEXISTENCE WITH THE LAND

•	Movement of peoples (nomadism, migration)
•	Settlement
•	Modes of subsistence
•	Technological evolution

	HUMAN BEINGS IN SOCIETY

•	Human interaction
•	Cultural coexistence
•	Spirituality and creative expression.

3.6	The 1999 UK Tentative List took these into account in its selection of themes for future UK nominations, focusing in particular on industrialization and the UK’s global influence.

3.7	Since then, the World Heritage Committee has commissioned the Advisory Bodies (ICOMOS and IUCN) to carry out further studies, completed in 2005 and 2004 respectively.  The ICOMOS study, covering cultural sites, does not recommend specific themes but does have a comprehensive analysis of what types of cultural heritage are, and are not, represented on the World Heritage List.  It should be taken into account by anyone considering proposing a site for inclusion on the new UK Tentative List (http://www.international.icomos.org/world_heritage/whlgaps.htm)

3.8	The IUCN study (http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ouv2006_english.pdf), on natural sites, is able to be more precise and recommends that priority should be given to specific terrestrial and marine habitats within the biomes of Tropical Grassland/Savanna, Lake Systems, Tundra and Polar Systems, Temperate Grasslands and Cold Winter Deserts.  The specific habitats, which are indicative and not exclusive, are:

Grasslands

•	Sudd-Sahelian savanna and flooded grasslands
•	Sub-Antarctic grasslands, including South Georgia
•	Sub-polar and arctic tundra

Wetlands		

•	Flooded grasslands such as Okavango and the Sudd swamps
•	Volga and Lena River deltas
•	Western Ghats rivers

Deserts

•	Succulent Karoo
•	Namib desert
•	Central Asian deserts
•	Socotra desert
Forests

•	Madagascar moist forests
•	Forests in southern Chile and southern Argentina
•	Dry and moist forests in New Caledonia
•	Western Ghats forests

Marine

•	Red Sea corals
•	Andaman Sea (sites within the marine eco-region)
•	Benguela Current (marine)
•	Marine sites within the following WWF eco-regions: Fiji, Palau and Tahiti
•	Gulf of California
•	Maldives/Chagos atolls

3.9	The precision of the IUCN natural sites study, in recommending that priority should be given to specific terrestrial and marine habitats within specific biome, and in some cases within named countries, unambiguously defines those areas where the advisory body sees a need for future natural site nominations. These habitats include at least two specific recommendations within UK Overseas Territories (South Georgia and Chagos) but the study includes no reference to any habitats within the UK itself.

3.10	There are also a number of thematic studies looking at specific aspects of cultural and natural heritage.  A list of those studies already completed is at http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy

3.11	In addition to these studies, the World Heritage Committee has also recommended in the Operational Guidelines (para 59) that well-represented states should slow down their rate of submission of further nominations by:
a) spacing voluntarily their nominations according to conditions that they will define, and/or;
b) proposing only properties falling into categories still under-represented, and/or;
c) linking each of their nominations with a nomination presented by a State Party whose heritage is underrepresented; or
d) deciding, on a voluntary basis, to suspend the presentation of new nominations.

3.12	Subsequently, the World Heritage Committee has also asked member states to consider harmonising their Tentative List with those of their neighbours.

Chapter 4:	Costs and benefits of World Heritage Site status

4.1	Information from the World Heritage Committee and its advisers provides an invaluable steer as to the sort of site which is likely to gain inscription on the World Heritage List.  But as a State Party which is already well represented on the List we are also asked to consider slowing down or suspending our nominations.

4.2	To help decide whether to suspend or space our nominations, or to focus on particular types of site in future, DCMS together with funding partners Historic Scotland and Cadw commissioned an independent study of the costs and benefits of World Heritage Site Status. In particular we wanted to know the answers to the following questions: 

•	What are the benefits involved in nomination and inscription? 
•	What are the associated costs and responsibilities of WHS status? 
•	How are the costs and responsibilities of WHS status affected by the location, nature of the site, or by the extent of marketing before as opposed to after inscription?
•	How have costs, responsibilities and benefits changed since the last Tentative List was drawn up in 1999? How might they change in future years as values evolve and global markets develop? 
•	What could be done to reduce the costs and optimise the potential benefits of WHS bids? 
•	How far is the perception of costs/benefits matched by the reality? 
•	To what extent does a successful WHS bid enable sites to lever in other sources of funds? 

4.3	Following competitive tender PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) was commissioned in May 2007 to investigate the costs and benefits of World Heritage Site status in the UK.  
Summary of PWC findings

4.4	The study sought to identify only those additional costs and benefits which were directly attributable to WHS status. It involved several different elements:
•	a literature review of previous research in this area
•	a consultation programme with over 70 different individuals and organisations 
•	a cost survey of UK World Heritage sites
•	six case studies of UK World Heritage Sites involving 5 well known sites and one less well known 
•	a postal survey of residents across the case study sites.

4.5	The full report, literature review and case studies can be found on the DCMS website www.dcms.gov.uk and inform this consultation. Main findings from the study are as follows.

What are the costs and benefits associated with WHS status and who incurs or gains them?

4.6	There is significant variation in the costs associated with WHS as sites are so different in terms of ownership, scale, nature, information available and location. 

NB: All employment costs reflect salaries and ‘on-cost’ in terms of overheads