Abstract
This chapter examines the role of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (hereinafter the “World Heritage Convention” or “WHC”) in the Arctic, in the light of global warming. It first sketches out the system of the WHC in general, including its structure, general obligations, and the process by which world heritage is identified and nominated. It then discusses some challenges the World Heritage system is currently facing: the imbalance of the World Heritage List, competing interests regarding world heritage, and climate change. The last and most extensive part of the chapter concentrates on the focal topic of this study, the World Heritage Convention in the Arctic. It introduces the current role of the convention in this region and examines the specific impacts climate change can have on Arctic world heritage. Finally, the future prospects of the WHC in the Arctic are assessed, with particular reference to the warming climate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a more detailed, recent treatment of the definition of cultural heritage and its development within the WHC system, see Yusuf (2008).
- 2.
For a more detailed, recent treatment of the definition of natural heritage and its development within the WHC system, see Redgwell (2008).
- 3.
Earlier, World Heritage sites were selected on the basis of six cultural and four natural criteria. Since 2005, only one set of ten criteria has been applied. For information about the development of the application of the World Heritage criteria, see Session reports: 31st Session (2007, Item 9, pp. 9–16).
- 4.
The first Operational Guidelines are from 1977; the latest version has been in force since January 2008. For the historical development and different versions of the Operational Guidelines, see http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines. The revisions have mostly reflected the development of the concept of outstanding universal value (Session reports: 31st Session, 2007, Item 9, p. 4).
- 5.
For more detailed criteria for evaluating “integrity”, see Operational Guidelines, Section II.E (paras. 87–95). Additionally, properties nominated under criteria i-vi must meet the conditions of “authenticity”, which is defined in more detail in paras. 79–86.
- 6.
The Statement of Outstanding Universal Value “should include a summary of the Committee’s determination that the property has outstanding universal value, identifying the criteria under which the property was inscribed, including the assessments of the conditions of integrity or authenticity, and of the requirements for protection and management in force” (Operational Guidelines, para. 155).
- 7.
Accordingly, it has been suggested that the criteria of natural beauty in the WHC system should not be used alone but only in conjunction with other criteria (Session reports: 22nd Session, 1998, p. 7). At the moment, the relevant selection criterion is number vii: “to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance”. The present version of the previous criterion, number 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”), already states that it should “preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria” (Operational Guidelines, para. 77).
- 8.
- 9.
Apparently, the application of the concept of outstanding universal value and the conditions of integrity by the World Heritage Committee and its advisory bodies has become increasingly rigorous over time (Session reports: 31st Session, 2007, Item 9, p. 24 [Progress report by IUCN, 20 April 2007]). For treatment of outstanding universal value, integrity and authenticity from a philosophical point of view, see Jokilehto (2006).
- 10.
The Tentative Lists of states are accessible at http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists
- 11.
This has been required of all nominations, including those of natural properties, since 2000 (Operational Guidelines, para. 63).
- 12.
For a more detailed treatment, see Buzzini and Condorelli (2008, pp. 181–183).
- 13.
For a more detailed treatment of the case of urgent need, see Buzzini and Condorelli (2008, pp. 183–186).
- 14.
In the case of cultural properties, examples of ascertained danger are: “(i) serious deterioration of materials; (ii) serious deterioration of structure and/or ornamental features; (iii) serious deterioration of architectural or townplanning coherence; (iv) serious deterioration of urban or rural space, or the natural environment; (v) significant loss of historical authenticity; (vi) important loss of cultural significance” (para. 179), and in the case of natural properties: “(i) A serious decline in the population of the endangered species or the other species of outstanding universal value for which the property was legally established to protect, either by natural factors such as disease or by man-made factors such as poaching”; “(ii) Severe deterioration of the natural beauty or scientific value of the property, as by human settlement, construction of reservoirs which flood important parts of the property, industrial and agricultural development including use of pesticides and fertilizers, major public works, mining, pollution, logging, firewood collection, etc.”; and “(iii) Human encroachment on boundaries or in upstream areas which threaten the integrity of the property” (para. 180).
- 15.
Examples of potential danger for cultural properties include: “(i) modification of juridical status of the property diminishing the degree of its protection; (ii) lack of conservation policy; (iii) threatening effects of regional planning projects; (iv) threatening effects of town planning; (v) outbreak or threat of armed conflict; (vi) gradual changes due to geological, climatic or other environmental factors” (para. 179), and for natural properties: “(i) a modification of the legal protective status of the area; (ii) planned resettlement or development projects within the property or so situated that the impacts threaten the property; (iii) outbreak or threat of armed conflict; (iv) the management plan or management system is lacking or inadequate, or not fully implemented” (para. 180).
- 16.
There are also certain “supplementary factors” which the committee “may wish to bear in mind” when making its decision: “(a) Decisions which affect World Heritage properties are taken by Governments after balancing all factors. The advice of the World Heritage Committee can often be decisive if it can be given before the property becomes threatened. (b) Particularly in the case of ascertained danger, the physical or cultural deteriorations to which a property has been subjected should be judged according to the intensity of its effects and analyzed case by case. (c) Above all in the case of potential danger to a property, one should consider that: (i) the threat should be appraised according to the normal evolution of the social and economic framework in which the property is situated; (ii) it is often impossible to assess certain threats – such as the threat of armed conflict – as to their effect on cultural or natural properties; (iii) some threats are not imminent in nature, but can only be anticipated, such as demographic growth. (d) Finally, in its appraisal the Committee should take into account any cause of unknown or unexpected origin which endangers a cultural or natural property” (para. 182).
- 17.
For a more detailed treatment, see Buzzini and Condorelli (2008, pp. 177–199).
- 18.
For a discussion concerning the possible erga omnes character of obligations created by the WHC, see Buzzini and Condorelli (2008, pp. 178–179).
- 19.
These provisions have been examined in more detail in, i.e., Global climate change (2004) and the Tasmanian Dam Case in the High Court of Australia (Commonwealth v Tasmania, 1982–1983). The deliberations of the court in the Tasmanian Dam case are available at http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?dbwidetocone=05%3ALRP%3AHigh%20Court%3A1983%3ACommonwealth%20v%20Tasmania%20(The%20Tasmanian%20Dam%20Case)%3A%2301% 23Order%3B (retrieved June 22, 2008).
- 20.
The site was initially listed in 1994.
- 21.
For a more detailed treatment, see Aa (2005, pp. 22–26).
- 22.
For an assessment of the role of the WHC in respect of properties fulfilling the requirements of the convention for world heritage of outstanding universal value but nevertheless not included in the World Heritage List, see later.
- 23.
The procedure for the deletion of properties from the World Heritage List is set out in paras. 192–198.
- 24.
There is no express provision in the WHC providing for the possibility of deleting a property from the World Heritage List, but this possibility was contained already in the first version of the Operational Guidelines in 1977 (Operational Guidelines, 1977, para. 5.iv) and has been maintained ever since.
- 25.
For more details, see Aa (2005, p. 20).
- 26.
- 27.
For a more detailed assessment, see Aa (2005, pp. 29–38).
- 28.
On the history of the Global Strategy, see, e.g., Yusuf (2008, pp. 34–35).
- 29.
The Global Strategy has encompassed natural heritage and mixed sites since 1996.
- 30.
In addition to themes relating to human coexistence with the land, there are other areas which have more to do with the role of humans in a society, like “cultural coexistence” and “spirituality and creative expression” (Session reports: 22nd Session, 1998, p. 5). On the Global Strategy in more detail, see Yusuf (2008, pp. 35–40).
- 31.
See also Values of the Arctic (2004, p. 8). A study carried out by the ICOMOS in 2004 identified two main categories of reasons for the gaps in the World Heritage List. The first was structural reasons related to the nomination process of World Heritage sites, and to management and protection of cultural properties. Secondly, there are qualitative reasons concerning the way properties are identified, assessed and evaluated (Global strategy, n.d.).
- 32.
One practical reason for the lack of natural World Heritage sites is the fact that natural properties often extend over the territories of several countries, and transboundary nominations tend to be more complicated to make (Aa, 2005, pp. 27–28).
- 33.
Pursuant to an estimation made by the IUCN, “a number in the range of 300 natural and mixed WH sites should be sufficient to complete this part of the WH List”. The IUCN estimated in 2004 that it could take about 10 years to achieve this. Subsequent additions may be needed even after that, due to “new information and scientific knowledge” (World Heritage List [WHL]: Future priorities, 2004, p. 13).
- 34.
Sweden has been very active in submitting nominations. It has more World Heritage sites (14 at the moment) than any other country in Nordic and Baltic Europe (State of the World, 2005, p. 141).
- 35.
- 36.
Over 2/3 of the glaciers that were in the park in 1850 have already disappeared (State of the parks, 2002, p. 15).
- 37.
The World Heritage Centre made a survey among the states parties to the WHC in 2005. Of the 110 responses from 83 states 72% were of the opinion that climate change had an impact on their natural and cultural heritage. 125 World Heritage sites were mentioned specifically as threatened by the warming climate. 46 of these were cultural sites, the rest 79 natural or mixed sites (Predicting and managing, 2006, paras. 40, 42–43, 45).
- 38.
In the natural World Heritage site of Kluane/Wrangell-St.Elias/Glacier Bay/Tatshenshini-Alsek Park, additional significant cultural values have recently been discovered: over 9000-year-old culturally modified pieces of wood. Their conservation is threatened because of the rapid melting of the ice patch where they are located (Predicting and managing, 2006, “Box 6” [below para. 33]). The deterioration of permafrost has also affected significantly at least one property included in the Canadian Tentative List, the Ivvavik/Vuntut/Herschel Island (Colette, 2007, pp. 58–59).
- 39.
Australia, for instance, has expressed similar opinions. See Francioni and Lenzerini (2008, p. 406).
- 40.
See the report Global climate change (2004), where it was argued that “the World Heritage Committee could determine that the [Great Barrier Reef] should be placed on the List of World Heritage in Danger on the grounds that the Australian Government has not developed an appropriate and effective response to climate change through ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and a commitment to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions” (para. 115).
- 41.
For suggestions of the World Heritage Committee to these ends, see Session reports: 31st Session (2007, Item 7.1, pp. 7–9).
- 42.
For more information, see Session reports: 31st Session (2007, Item 7.1, pp. 7–9).
- 43.
This would supplement the existing request under para. 199 of the Operational Guidelines to submit reports on legislative and administrative provisions adopted and other actions taken for the application of the WHC.
- 44.
For more information, see Nordic World Heritage Foundation website.
- 45.
Transboundary World Heritage property of Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Republic of Moldova, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, and Ukraine.
- 46.
In Values of the Arctic (2004), Arctic World Heritage natural sites alone are counted to include “three national parks in Canada, two in the USA (Alaska), two in Sweden, three in Russia, one site in Greenland and [Thingvellir] National Park in Iceland” (p. 12).
- 47.
It has been estimated that 20–30% of the early listings were “iconic” sites (Cameron, 2005, p. 2).
- 48.
See also Global climate change (2004, pp. 36–37), where the same has been argued as regards the World Heritage site of Great Barrier Reef. The reasoning there goes as far as to argue that the Great Barrier Reef “should be placed on the List [of World Heritage in Danger] on the grounds that the Australian Government has not developed an appropriate and effective response to climate change through ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and a commitment to substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions” (para. 115).
- 49.
As mentioned above, the committee is now planning to include even a specific reference to the effects of climate change in the relevant paragraphs of the Operational Guidelines.
- 50.
Occasionally, the placing of a site on the World Heritage List has been accompanied by its immediate inclusion on the In Danger List as well. See Boer (2008, p. 101). The listing of a property on the In Danger List alone is, however, not possible.
- 51.
Petitions have been made to have also three other World Heritage sites put on the In Danger List: the Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Belize), the Huascarán National Park (Peru), and the Great Barrier Reef (Australia). The sixth NGO petition calling for the inclusion of a World Heritage site on the In Danger List was filed with the World Heritage Committee in June 2007. It concerned the Greater Blue Mountains Area in Australia. For more information about all of these petitions, see http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/topic/unesco
- 52.
The nomination was made June 21, 2007. For more information, see http://whc.unesco.org/ en/tentativelists/5161. At the same time, Norway nominated the Island of Jan Mayen and Bouvet as parts of a serial transnational nomination of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge (together with Brazil, Great Britain, Portugal and Iceland). See http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5162
- 53.
International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and the Arctic, 30 November–1 December 2007, Narvik, Norway. The meeting was organized by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, by the Support of the Nordic World Heritage Foundation, Norwegian authorities, and the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation for the Environment. It was attended by 27 participants from the eight Arctic countries, in addition to which there we representatives from Arctic indigenous peoples’ organizations, environmental organizations, and world heritage organizations (including ICOMOS and IUCN).
- 54.
These include the Viking Culture and Saami Cultural Heritage. For instance, the proposed nomination of Saami Cultural Heritage has been planned to be jointly prepared by the four states with Saami populations (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia) and representative organs of the Saami. The nomination should “cover areas best representing the whole range of values (sacred sites, burial grounds, archaeological evidence and cultural landscapes reflecting traditional use and practices such as reindeer herding)” (Conclusions and recommendations, 2007, pp. 2–3).
- 55.
For this purpose, the Operational Guidelines define “Boundaries of Effective Protection” (paras. 99–102).
- 56.
Although such buffer zones do not belong to the site, modifications to the buffer zone of a property inscribed on the World Heritage List “should be approved by the World Heritage Committee” (Operational Guidelines, para. 107).
- 57.
Also internal zoning (within a World Heritage site) can be used. See Management planning (2007, p. 20).
- 58.
Generally, the emergence of the idea of anticipatory preventive action, the “precautionary principle” or “precautionary approach”, can be seen in multilateral treaty law since the 1980s.
- 59.
This is the definition given in the well-known report “Our Common Future” of the Brundtland Commission in 1987 (Our common, 1987, Section “From One Earth to One World”, para. 27). The report explained further that “[i]n essence, sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony and enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations” (Part I, Chapter 2 “Towards Sustainable Development”, para. 15).
- 60.
Pursuant to this reasoning, Article 4 of the WHC is said to be “primarily one of conduct rather than result” (Global climate change, 2004, p. 25).
- 61.
This document also suggests that when considering the objectives of World Heritage management, the concept of “Limits of Acceptable Change” should be taken into account. Such an approach would enable the identification of thresholds of sustainability which cannot be exceeded (Management planning, 2007, p. 17).
- 62.
For a more detailed treatment, see Lenzerini (2008, pp. 212–214), where it is argued that the inscription of a property on a national Tentative List could already entail “a form of international recognition” enough to make the property the object of protection of the WHC.
- 63.
See also Global climate change (2004, p. 25).
- 64.
See Lenzerini (2008, pp. 207–214) for a more detailed assessment of the effectiveness of obligations arising from WHC Article 12.
References
Aa, B. J. M. van der. (2005). Preserving the heritage of humanity? Obtaining World Heritage status and the impacts of listing. University of Groningen, Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research.
Background paper prepared by IUCN. (2005, April). Paper presented at the Special Expert Meeting of the World Heritage Convention: The concept of outstanding universal value, Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation. Session reports: 29th Session, 2005, INF.9B, 30–50.
Benefits of ratification. (n.d.). UNESCO. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/ en/164
Boer, B. (2008). Article 3: Identification and delineation of World Heritage properties. In F. Francioni (Ed.), with the assistance of F. Lenzerini, The 1972 World Heritage Convention:A commentary (pp. 85–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Budapest Declaration on World Heritage. World Heritage Committee, 26th Session, Budapest, Hungary, 28 June 2002. WHC-02/CONF.202/25. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2002/whc-02-conf202-25e.pdf#decision.9
Buzzini, G. P., & Condorelli, L. (2008). Article 11: List of World Heritage in danger and deletion of a property from the World Heritage List. In F. Francioni (Ed.), with the assistance of F. Lenzerini, The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A commentary (pp. 175–199). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cameron, C. (2005, April 7). Evolution of the application of “outstanding universal value” for cultural and natural heritage. Paper presented at the Special Expert Meeting of the World Heritage Convention: The concept of outstanding universal value, Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, Russian Federation. Session reports: 29th Session, 2005, INF.9B, 1–7.
Colette, A. (lead author). (2007). Case studies on climate change and World Heritage. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris. CLT/WHC/07/30. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001506/150600e.pdf
Commonwealth v Tasmania (High Court of Australia) 1982–83, 158 CLR 1, 46 ALR 625.
Conclusions and recommendations of the international expert meeting on World Heritage and the Arctic. (2007). Narvik, Norway, November 30–December 1. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/events/documents/event-440-1.doc
Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Adopted 16 November 1972, in force 17 December 1975. 1037 UNTS 151. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext
Dresden to scale down bridge to preserve World Heritage status. (2008, January 29). Deutsche Welle dw-world.de. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/ 0,2144,3095783,00.html
Facing the threat of climate change at natural World Heritage sites. (2006). IUCN Media Background Information. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.iucn.org/en/news/archive/ 2006/03/17_cc_wh.htm
Francioni, F. (2008). The 1972 World Heritage Convention: An introduction. In F. Francioni (Ed.), with the assistance of F. Lenzerini, The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A commentary (pp. 3–7). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Francioni, F., & Lenzerini, F. (2008). The future of the World Heritage Convention. In F. Francioni (Ed.), with the assistance of F. Lenzerini, The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A commentary (pp. 401–410). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
George, J. (2006, July 28). World Heritage designation brings money, protection. Nunatsiaq News. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.nunatsiaq.com/archives/60728/news/nunavut/ 60728_05.html
Global climate change and the Great Barrier Reef: Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention. (2004, September 21). A Report prepared by the Sydney Centre for International and Global Law, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, Australia, for the Environmental Defender’s Office (NSW) Ltd, CANA – Climate Action Network Australia, Greenpeace Australia Pacific. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/ scigl/SCIGLFinalReport21_09_04.pdf
Global strategy. (n.d.). UNESCO. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/ globalstrategy/#efforts
Hafvenstein, L., & Handwerk, B. (2003, February 3). World Heritage status a mixed boon. National geographic news. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/ 2003/01/0120_030122_belize1.html
Hillary, E. Sir. (2005, June 13). Re: Petition to UNESCO World Heritage Committee Sagarmatha National Park [Letter]. Remuera, Auckland. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.climatelaw.org/cases/case-documents/unesco/sir-edmund-hillary.pdf
The Ilulissat Glacier, a wonder of the world melting away. (2005, August 22). TerraDaily. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Ilulissat_ Glacier_A_Wonder_Of_The_World_Melting_Away.html
Jokilehto, J. (2006). Considerations on authenticity and integrity in World Heritage context. City and Time, 2(1). Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.ct.ceci-br.org/novo/ revista/viewarticle.php?id=44&layout=html
Lenzerini, F. (2008). Article 12: Protection of properties not inscribed on the World Heritage List. In F. Francioni (Ed.), with the assistance of F. Lenzerini, The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A commentary (pp. 201–218). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Management planning for World Heritage properties: A resource manual for practioners (draft report). (2007, June). IUCN.
Measures to counter effects of climate change on natural and cultural World Heritage sites. (2006). Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=30347&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Nordic World Heritage Foundation website at http://www.nwhf.no (retrieved June 22, 2008).
Oman’s Arabian Oryx sanctuary: First site ever to be deleted from UNESCO’s World Heritage list. (2007, June 28). Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/362
Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. (1977, October 20). UNESCO. Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. CC-77/CONF.001/8 Rev. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide77b.pdf
Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. (2005, February 2). UNESCO. Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. World Heritage Centre. WHC. 05/02. Retrieved July 7, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-en.pdf
Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention. (2008, January). UNESCO. Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. World Heritage Centre. WHC. 08/01. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf
Our common future. (1987, August 4). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report). UN Doc. A/42/427. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm
Petition of the Forum of Indigenous Peoples. (2000, November 24). Submission to the World Heritage Committee from a Forum of Indigenous People assembled in Cairns, Australia. Session reports: 24th Session, 2000, Annex V.
Predicting and managing the effects of climate change on World Heritage. (2006). A joint report from the World Heritage Centre, its Advisory Bodies, and a broad group of experts to the 30th Session of the World Heritage Committee, Vilnius. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/news/documents/news-262-1.doc
Programme for the Norwegian chairmanship of the Arctic Council 2006–2008. (n.d.). Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://arctic-council.org/filearchive/AC_Programme_2006-2008.pdf
Red Shirt, D. (2002, May 15). Presentation at Cultural Heritage and Sacred Sites: World Heritage from an Indigenous Perspective, New York University. Transcript from audiotape by Marie-Danielle Samuel. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.dialoguebetweennations.com/ N2N/PFII/English/DelphineRedShirt.htm
Redgwell, C. (2008). Article 2: Definition of natural heritage. In F. Francioni (Ed.), with the assistance of F. Lenzerini, The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A commentary (pp. 63–84). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Report on the proposed World Heritage Indigenous Peoples Council of Experts (WHIPCOE). (2001, June 14). Bureau of the World Heritage Committee, 25th Session, Paris, UNESCO Headquarters, Room X, 25–30 June 2001. WHC-2001/CONF.205/WEB.3. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/whc-01-205-web3e.pdf
Session reports of the World Heritage Committee
– 31st Session, Christchurch, New Zealand, 23 June–2 July 2007.
– Item 7.1 of the Provisional Agenda: Issues related to the state of conservation of World Heritage properties: the impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage properties. WHC-07/31.COM/7.1. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/ 2007/whc07-31com-71e.pdf
– Item 9 of the Provisional Agenda: Discussion on the Outstanding Universal Value. WHC-07/31.COM/9. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2007/whc07-31com-9e.pdf
– 29th Session, Durban, South Africa, 10–17 July 2005.
– Decision 29COM 7A.29: Cologne Cathedral (Germany) (C 292rev). WHC-05/29.COM/22. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2005/whc05-29com-22e.pdf#decision.7A.29
– INF.9A: Background paper prepared by the World Heritage Centre on the occasion of the Expert meeting on the concept of outstanding universal value (Kazan, Russian Federation, 6–9 April 2005). WHC-05/29.COM/INF.9A. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2005/whc05-29com-inf09Ae.pdf
– INF.9B: Keynote speech by Ms Christina Cameron and presentations by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies. WHC-05/29.COM/INF.9B. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2005/whc05-29com-inf09Be.pdf
– 25th Session, Helsinki, Finland, 11–16 December 2001. WHC-01/CONF.208/24. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2001/whc-01-conf208-24e.pdf
– 24th Session, Cairns, Australia, 27 November–2 December 2000. WHC-2000/CONF.204/21. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom00.htm. (Annex V is available at http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom00-annexes.htm [retrieved June 22, 2008]).
– 22nd Session, Kyoto, Japan, 30 November–5 December 1998. Item 10 of the Provisional Agenda: Progress Report, Synthesis and Action Plan on the Global Strategy for a representative and credible World Heritage List. WHC-98/CONF.203/12. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/98-203-12.pdf
– 20th Session, Merida, Mexico, 2–7 December 1996. WHC-96/CONF.201/21. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom96.htm#774
State of the parks: A resource assessment. (2002, November). Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park, National Parks Conservation Association. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.npca.org/stateoftheparks/glacier/glacier.pdf
State of the World Heritage in Europe. (2005). Section I, WHC-05/29.COM/INF.11B. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2005/whc05-29com-inf11Be.pdf
Tentative list. (n.d.). UNESCO. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/ tentativelist
Titchen, Sarah. (2002, May 15). Presentation at Cultural Heritage and Sacred Sites: World Heritage from an Indigenous Perspective, New York University. Transcript from audiotape by Marie-Danielle Samuel. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www. dialoguebetweennations.com/n2n/pfii/english/SarahTitchen.htm
UNESCO adopts climate change strategy for World Heritage sites. (2006, July 11). Environment News Service. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2006/2006-07-11-01.asp
UNESCO report recommends the construction of a tunnel instead of a bridge in Dresden World Heritage site. (2008, March 7). UNESCOPRESS. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=42035&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_ SECTION=201.html
UNESCO: Sir Edmund Hillary’s statement. (2005, July 7). Climate Justice Programme. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.climatelaw.org/media/2005Jul07
Values of the Arctic protected areas: A summary. (2004). Parks Canada on behalf of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Program. Ottawa, Canada.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Adopted 23 May 1969, in force 27 January 1980. 1155 UNTS 311. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/ conventions/1_1_1969.pdf
World Heritage Committee fails to act. (2006, July 20). Belize Institute of Environmental Law and Policy, Friends of the Earth International, the Climate Justice Programme and Greenpeace. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.climatelaw.org/media/2006Jul20
World Heritage List. (WHL). (n.d.). UNESCO. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/en/list
The World Heritage List (WHL): Future priorities for a credible and complete list of natural and mixed sites. (2004, April). A Strategy Paper prepared by IUCN. Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-504-3.pdf
The World Heritage List (WHL): Guidance and future priorities for identifying natural heritage of potential outstanding universal value. (2006, May 15). Paper prepared by IUCN (draft). Retrieved June 22, 2008, from http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/ pubs/pdfs/heritage/ouv2006_english.pdf
Yusuf, A. A. (2008). Article 1: Definition of cultural heritage. In F. Francioni (Ed.), with the assistance of F. Lenzerini, The 1972 World Heritage Convention: A commentary (pp. 23–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Viikari, L. (2009). World Heritage Convention, Climate Change and the Arctic. In: Koivurova, T., Keskitalo, E., Bankes, N. (eds) Climate Governance in the Arctic. Environment & Policy, vol 50. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9542-9_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9542-9_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9541-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9542-9
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)