Slowly but surely, countries are becoming aware that the inscription by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) of a World Heritage Site not only helps to protect it, but confers a great honour on a country and also puts it on the tourist map. In July 2004, 34 sites were added to the list, bringing the total to 788. Most sites are described as “cultural,” which generally means archaeological. But there are also 154 natural sites, including national parks and other scenic locations, and 23 which are mixed. UNESCO’s concern for safeguarding such monumental treasures dates back 45 years, when the Egyptian Abu Simbel and Philae temples were threatened by building the Aswan dam.

However, the inscription of a site does not necessarily mean a lifetime award. Aware that countries are sometimes unable or unwilling to protect these sites, UNESCO dangles a sword over each recipient by warning them that the award can be withdrawn. As many as 35 sites are listed as endangered, which puts an extra responsibility on the “owners” to guard them against the depredations of natural wear and tear or human intervention.

In the past, three sites—the old city of Jerusalem in 1982, the temple complex of Angkor Wat¹ a decade later, and the minaret of Jam in Afghanistan in 2002—were simultaneously inscribed and listed as in danger. This year, thankfully, Angkor has been removed from the endangered list. Until today, UNESCO has not taken the extreme step of delisting any “property” as a World Heritage Site.

The 65-metre-tall minaret of Jam is the world’s second tallest tower, surpassed only by the Qutb Minar in Delhi, and was built by rulers from the same region of the world. Not so long ago, Afghanistan witnessed the terrible destruction of the two tall 5th century Buddha statues in Bamiyan, despite the fact that UNESCO and several governments pleaded unsuccessfully with the Taliban to save the monuments. The area was inscribed by UNESCO last year as a World Heritage Site consisting of a “cultural landscape and archaeological remains.” Indian government conservation experts were particularly distressed at this wanton destruction by the Taliban, because they had helped Afghanistan restore the statues some years ago.

Threats to sites include war, mining, industrial pollution (such as the apprehension for India’s famed Taj Mahal three decades ago, with the location of an oil refinery 40 km away), poaching, and mismanaged tourism. The Croatian port town of Dubrovnik, which dates back to Roman times, could not be protected by UNESCO’s imprimatur when it was bombarded by Yugoslav forces in 1991.

Angkor Wat was under siege for several years after the overthrow of the Pol Pot regime, whose guerrillas went into hiding in the jungles near what is one of the world’s biggest archaeological sites, among their other hideouts. The guerrillas also looted the temples freely to smuggle the priceless sculptures and sell them on the world market.

In India, the temple town of Hampi² is one of two endangered sites. The local authorities have been building a bridge across the river besides the complex and a bypass road to bring tourists to the site more easily, but have intruded on it in the process. The Delhi-based conservation architect Nalini Thakur told us that putting Hampi on the endangered list has certainly prompted the state government and archaeologists to draw up a management plan. However, British architectural historians Dr George Michell and John Fritz told us that “UNESCO status has failed to adequately protect the site” because it could not prevent these insensitive interventions. The proper perspective is that UNESCO is most concerned about interfering with the sovereignty of member countries and cannot police such sites: It is primarily up to the governments to take appropriate measures.

Ironically, the very rationale of inscribing some sites proves their downfall. Several locations are in danger of being swamped by tourists who threaten the very integrity of the monuments or sites. National Geographic magazine quoted the UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee in Paris four years ago as saying, “The travel and tourism industry is the world’s biggest, and it is growing at a fast pace. What will be the cost of this tremendous boom to the integrity, the very survival perhaps, of our heritage sites?” In the Asia-Pacific region alone, tourism turnover is expected to reach $2 trillion next year, twice the GDP of the UK. Jeff Morgan of the California-based Global Heritage Fund told us that Angkor Wat brings in as much as a third of Cambodia’s foreign exchange, while the Tikal National Park³ in Guatemala raises $280 million a year.

The famed Galapagos Islands, 1,000 km off the coast of Ecuador, were threatened by tourists and over fishing and had to be put on the endangered list. In 1997, the government of Ecuador imposed restrictions on fishing and finalised a management plan. In Peru, the Inca site of Machu Picchu⁴—which attracts one million visitors a year—has proved so popular that the authorities considered building a cable car to enable tourists avoid the steep climb, as well as other facilities. However, conservationists protested that this would destroy the misty ambience of this fabled site made immortal by the words of the poet Pablo Neruda, and might actually damage the monument’s structures.

The Iguazu National Park in Brazil, with its spectacular waterfalls, has similarly been threatened by tourist helicopter flights and the construction of a road which bisects the park—all of which disturb prized species like the giant anteater and giant otter that are endemic there.

To some extent, natural sites are in greater danger since species and habitats are more fragile than stone or other monuments. Even the Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming is listed in danger, as are the Everglades in Florida⁵. This shows that even countries where there is no shortage of funds for conservation can’t be complacent that their sites are well protected. In India, the only other threatened site is the Manas National Park in Assam⁶, where Bodo tribal secessionists have been poaching the rare one-horned rhinos. As many as 33 rhinos were poached between 1989 and 1992, putting the loss to the park at an estimated $2 million.

Worldwide, the answer is not to deter tourists, as some experts believe. Instead, the answer calls for proper management. This is precisely the challenge that now confronts the Indian authorities on the 350th anniversary of the Taj Mahal. After a gap of several years, it intends to reopen the “miracle in marble” to visitors on nights when there is a full moon—the practice was discontinued for fear of terrorist attacks. With proper crowd management and security precautions, there is no reason why entry to monuments cannot be regulated, as they are in Italy and several other countries. Public awareness is the best antidote to heritage destruction.

*Darryl D’Monte is the founder-president of the International Federation of Environmental Journalists. He is also the chairperson of the Forum of Environmental Journalists of India (FEJI) and a syndicated columnist and freelance writer. He has published two books: “Temples or Tombs? Industry versus Environment: Three Controversies”, Center for Science & Environment, New Delhi, 1985 and “Ripping the Fabric: The Decline of Mumbai and its Mills”, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2002. He was previously the resident editor of the “Indian Express” (1979-1981) and of the “Times of India” (1988-1994) in Mumbai. Your e-mails will be forwarded to him by contacting the editor at: ScienceTech@islam-online.net.