World Heritage Site

This is a good article. Click here for more information.
From Bharatpedia, an open encyclopedia
(Redirected from UNESCO World Heritage List)

The World Heritage emblem is used to identify properties protected by the World Heritage Convention and inscribed on the official World Heritage List.[1]

A World Heritage Site is a landmark or area with legal protection by an international convention administered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). World Heritage Sites are designated by UNESCO for having cultural, historical, scientific or other form of significance. The sites are judged to contain "cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of outstanding value to humanity".[2]

To be selected, a World Heritage Site must be a somehow unique landmark which is geographically and historically identifiable and has special cultural or physical significance. For example, World Heritage Sites might be ancient ruins or historical structures, buildings, cities,[lower-alpha 1] deserts, forests, islands, lakes, monuments, mountains, or wilderness areas.[5][6] A World Heritage Site may signify a remarkable accomplishment of humanity, and serve as evidence of our intellectual history on the planet, or it might be a place of great natural beauty.[7] As of July 2021, a total of 1,154 World Heritage Sites (897 cultural, 218 natural, and 39 mixed properties) exist across 167 countries. With 58 selected areas, Italy is the country with the most sites on the list.[8]

The sites are intended for practical conservation for posterity, which otherwise would be subject to risk from human or animal trespassing, unmonitored, uncontrolled or unrestricted access, or threat from local administrative negligence. Sites are demarcated by UNESCO as protected zones.[2] The World Heritage Sites list is maintained by the international World Heritage Program administered by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, composed of 21 "states parties" that are elected by their General Assembly.[9] The programme catalogues, names, and conserves sites of outstanding cultural or natural importance to the common culture and heritage of humanity. The programme began with the "Convention Concerning the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage",[10] which was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972. Since then, 194 states have ratified the convention,[11] making it one of the most widely recognised international agreements and the world's most popular cultural programme.[12]



In 1954, the government of Egypt decided to build the new Aswan High Dam, whose resulting future reservoir would eventually inundate a large stretch of the Nile valley containing cultural treasures of ancient Egypt and ancient Nubia. In 1959, the governments of Egypt and Sudan requested UNESCO to assist them to protect and rescue the endangered monuments and sites. In 1960, the Director-General of UNESCO launched the International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia.[13] This appeal resulted in the excavation and recording of hundreds of sites, the recovery of thousands of objects, as well as the salvage and relocation to higher ground of several important temples. The most famous of these are the temple complexes of Abu Simbel and Philae. The campaign ended in 1980 and was considered a success. To thank countries which especially contributed to the campaign's success, Egypt donated four temples; the Temple of Dendur was moved to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, the Temple of Debod to the Parque del Oeste in Madrid, the Temple of Taffeh to the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden, and the Temple of Ellesyia to Museo Egizio in Turin.[14]

The project cost US$80 million (equivalent to $Error when using {{Inflation}}: NaN/calculation error please notify Template talk:Inflation. million in 2019), about $40 million of which was collected from 50 countries.[15] The project's success led to other safeguarding campaigns, such as saving Venice and its lagoon in Italy, the ruins of Mohenjo-daro in Pakistan, and the Borobodur Temple Compounds in Indonesia. Together with the International Council on Monuments and Sites, UNESCO then initiated a draft convention to protect cultural heritage.[15]

Convention and background

Convention concerning the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage
Signed16 November 1972
LocationParis, France
Effective17 December 1975
Condition20 ratifications
Ratifiers194 (190 UN member states plus the Cook Islands, the Holy See, Niue, and Palestine)
DepositaryDirector-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
LanguagesArabic, Chinese, English, French, Hebrew, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish[16]

The convention (the signed document of international agreement) guiding the work of the World Heritage Committee was developed over a seven-year period (1965–1972).

The United States initiated the idea of safeguarding places of high cultural or natural importance. A White House conference in 1965 called for a "World Heritage Trust" to preserve "the world's superb natural and scenic areas and historic sites for the present and the future of the entire world citizenry". The International Union for Conservation of Nature developed similar proposals in 1968, which were presented in 1972 to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.[17] Under the World Heritage Committee, signatory countries are required to produce and submit periodic data reporting providing the committee with an overview of each participating nation's implementation of the World Heritage Convention and a 'snapshot' of current conditions at World Heritage properties.[citation needed]

Based on the draft convention that UNESCO had initiated, a single text was eventually agreed upon by all parties, and the "Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage" was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972.[17] The Convention came into force on 17 December 1975. As of March 2022, it has been ratified by 194 states: 190 UN member states, 2 UN observer states (the Holy See and the State of Palestine), and 2 states in free association with New Zealand (the Cook Islands and Niue). Only three UN member states have not ratified the convention: Liechtenstein, Nauru, and Tuvalu.[11]

Objectives and positive results

By assigning places as World Heritage Sites, UNESCO wants to help to pass them on to future generations. Its motivation is that “[h]eritage is our legacy from the past, what we live with today” and that both cultural and natural heritage are “irreplaceable sources of life and inspiration”.[2] UNESCO's mission with respect to World Heritage consists of eight sub targets. These include encouraging the commitment of countries and local population to World Heritage conservation in various ways, providing emergency assistance for sites in danger, offering technical assistance and professional training, and supporting States Parties' public awareness-building activities.[2]

Being listed as a World Heritage Site can positively affect the site, its environment, and interactions between them. A listed site gains international recognition and legal protection, and can obtain funds from among others the World Heritage Fund to facilitate its conservation under certain conditions.[18] UNESCO reckons the restorations of the following four sites among its success stories: Angkor in Cambodia, the Old City of Dubrovnik in Croatia, the Wieliczka Salt Mine near Kraków in Poland, and the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania.[19] Additionally, the local population around a site may benefit from significantly increased tourism revenue.[20] When there are significant interactions between people and the natural environment, these can be recognised as "cultural landscapes".[lower-alpha 2]

Nomination process

A country must first identify its significant cultural and natural sites in a document known as the Tentative List. Next, it can place sites selected from that list into a Nomination File, which is evaluated by the International Council on Monuments and Sites and the World Conservation Union. A country may not nominate sites that have not been first included on its Tentative List. The two international bodies make recommendations to the World Heritage Committee for new designations. The Committee meets once a year to determine what nominated properties to add to the World Heritage List; sometimes it defers its decision or requests more information from the country that nominated the site. There are ten selection criteria – a site must meet at least one to be included on the list.[21]

Selection criteria

Until 2004, there were six sets of criteria for cultural heritage and four for natural heritage. In 2005, UNESCO modified these and now has one set of ten criteria. Nominated sites must be of "outstanding universal value" and must meet at least one of the ten criteria.[7]


Site No. 252: The Taj Mahal, an example of a World Heritage Site
Site No. 252: Taj Mahal, an example of a cultural heritage site
  1. "To represent a masterpiece of human creative genius"
  2. "To 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"
  3. "To bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared"
  4. "To be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history"
  5. "To 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"
  6. "To be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance"[lower-alpha 3]


Site No. 156: Serengeti National Park, an example of a natural heritage site
Site No. 274: Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu, an example of a mixed heritage site
  1. "To contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance"
  2. "To 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"
  3. "To be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals"
  4. "To 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"
  5. [7]

Extensions and other modifications

A country may request to extend or reduce the boundaries, modify the official name, or change the selection criteria of one of its already listed sites. Any proposal for a significant boundary change or to modify the site's selection criteria must be submitted as if it were a new nomination, including first placing it on the Tentative List and then onto the Nomination File.[21] A request for a minor boundary change, one that does not have a significant impact on the extent of the property or affect its "outstanding universal value", is also evaluated by the advisory bodies before being sent to the committee. Such proposals can be rejected by either the advisory bodies or the Committee if they judge it to be a significant change instead of a minor one.[21] Proposals to change a site's official name are sent directly to the committee.[21]


Site No. 1, the Galápagos Islands, had its boundaries extended in 2001 and 2003, and was included on the danger list from 2007 to 2010

A site may be added to the List of World Heritage in Danger if conditions threaten the characteristics for which the landmark or area was inscribed on the World Heritage List. Such problems may involve armed conflict and war, natural disasters, pollution, poaching, or uncontrolled urbanisation or human development. This danger list is intended to increase international awareness of the threats and to encourage counteractive measures. Threats to a site can be either proven imminent threats or potential dangers that could have adverse effects on a site.[22]

The state of conservation for each site on the danger list is reviewed yearly; after this, the Committee may request additional measures, delete the property from the list if the threats have ceased or consider deletion from both the List of World Heritage in Danger and the World Heritage List.[21] Only three sites have ever been delisted: the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in Oman, the Dresden Elbe Valley in Germany, and the Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City in the United Kingdom. The Arabian Oryx Sanctuary was directly delisted in 2007, instead of first being put on the danger list, after the Omani government decided to reduce the protected area's size by 90 per cent.[23] The Dresden Elbe Valley was first placed on the danger list in 2006 when the World Heritage Committee decided that plans to construct the Waldschlösschen Bridge would significantly alter the valley's landscape. In response, Dresden City Council attempted to stop the bridge's construction. However, after several court decisions allowed the building of the bridge to proceed, the valley was removed from the World Heritage List in 2009.[24] Liverpool's World Heritage status was revoked in July 2021, following developments (Liverpool Waters and Bramley-Moore Dock Stadium) on the northern docks of the World Heritage site leading to the "irreversible loss of attributes" on the site.[25][26]

The first global assessment to quantitatively measure threats to Natural World Heritage Sites found that 63 per cent of sites have been damaged by increasing human pressures including encroaching roads, agriculture infrastructure and settlements over the last two decades.[27][28] These activities endanger Natural World Heritage Sites and could compromise their unique values. Of the Natural World Heritage Sites that contain forest, 91 per cent experienced some loss since 2000. Many of them are more threatened than previously thought and require immediate conservation action.[27]

Furthermore, the destruction of cultural assets and identity-establishing sites is one of the primary goals of modern asymmetrical warfare. Therefore, terrorists, rebels and mercenary armies deliberately smash archaeological sites, sacred and secular monuments and loot libraries, archives and museums. The UN, United Nations peacekeeping and UNESCO in cooperation with Blue Shield International are active in preventing such acts. "No strike lists" are also created to protect cultural assets from air strikes.[29][30][31][32] However, only through cooperation with the locals can the protection of World Heritage Sites, archaeological finds, exhibits and archaeological sites from destruction, looting and robbery be implemented sustainably. The founding president of Blue Shield International Karl von Habsburg summed it up with the words: “Without the local community and without the local participants, that would be completely impossible”.[33][34]


Despite the successes of World Heritage listing in promoting conservation, the UNESCO-administered project has attracted criticism. This was caused by perceived under-representation of heritage sites outside Europe, disputed decisions on site selection and adverse impact of mass tourism on sites unable to manage rapid growth in visitor numbers.[35][36] A large lobbying industry has grown around the awards, because World Heritage listing can significantly increase tourism returns. Site listing bids are often lengthy and costly, putting poorer countries at a disadvantage.

Eritrea's efforts to promote Asmara are one example.[37] In 2016, the Australian government was reported to have successfully lobbied for the World Heritage Site Great Barrier Reef[38] conservation efforts to be removed from a UNESCO report titled "World Heritage and Tourism in a Changing Climate". The Australian government's actions, involving considerable expense for lobbying and visits for diplomats, were in response to their concern about the negative impact that an "at risk" label could have on tourism revenue at a previously designated UNESCO World Heritage Site.[39][40] In 2021, international scientists recommended UNESCO to put the Great Barrier Reef on the endangered list,[41] as global climate change had caused a further negative state of the corals and water quality.[42] Again, the Australian government campaigned against this, and in July 2021, the World Heritage Committee, made up diplomatic representatives of 21 countries, ignored UNESCO's assessment, based on studies of scientists, "that the reef was clearly in danger from climate change and so should be placed on the list." According to environmental protection groups, this "decision was a victory for cynical lobbying and that Australia, as custodians of the world’s biggest coral reef, was now on probation."[43]

Several listed locations, such as George Town in Penang, Casco Viejo in Panama and Hội An in Vietnam, have struggled to strike a balance between the economic benefits of catering to greatly increased visitor numbers after the recognition and preserving the original culture and local communities.[20][44]


UNESCO World Heritage Sites

The World Heritage Committee has divided the world into five geographic zones which it calls regions: Africa, Arab states, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and North America, and Latin America and the Caribbean. Russia and the Caucasus states are classified as European, while Mexico and the Caribbean are classified as belonging to the Latin America and Caribbean zone. The UNESCO geographic zones also give greater emphasis on administrative, rather than geographic associations. Hence, Gough Island, located in the South Atlantic, is part of the Europe and North America region because the British government nominated the site.

The table below includes a breakdown of the sites according to these zones and their classification as of July 2021:[8][45]

Zone/region Cultural Natural Mixed Total Percentage State Parties with inscribed properties
Africa 54 39 5 98 8.49% 35
Arab states 80 5 3 88 7.63% 18
Asia and the Pacific 195 70 12 277* 24.00% 36
Europe and North America 468 66 11 545* Template:Pct 50
Latin America and the Caribbean 100 38 8 146* 12.65% 28
Total 897 218 39 1154 100%

* The properties "Uvs Nuur Basin" and "Landscapes of Dauria" (Mongolia, Russian Federation) are trans-regional properties located in Europe and Asia, and the Pacific region. They are counted here in Asia and the Pacific region.

* The property "The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier, an Outstanding Contribution to the Modern Movement" (Argentina, Belgium, France, Germany, India, Japan, Switzerland) is a trans-regional property located in Europe, Asia, and the Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean region. It is counted here in Europe and North America.

Countries with 15 or more sites

Countries with 15 or more World Heritage Sites as of July 2021:

<timeline> ImageSize = width:600 height:auto barincrement:15 PlotArea = top:10 bottom:30 right:50 left:20 AlignBars = early

DateFormat = yyyy Period = from:0 till:60 TimeAxis = orientation:horizontal ScaleMajor = unit:year increment:10 start:0

Colors =

 id:canvas value:rgb(1,1,1)
 id:green  value:green
 id:blue   value:blue
 id:orange value:orange
 id:red    value:rgb(0.95,0.1,0)
 id:redl   value:rgb(0.84,0.41,0)
 id:black  value:black
 id:brown  value:rgb(0.58,0.29,0)

Backgroundcolors = canvas:canvas Define $n24=24 BarData =


PlotData =

 width:5 align:left fontsize:S shift:(5,-4) anchor:till
 from: 0 till: 58 color:green text:"Italy" (58)
 from: 0 till: 56 color:green text:"China" (56)
 from: 0 till: 51 color:green text:"Germany" (51)
 from: 0 till: 49 color:blue text:"France" (49)
 from: 0 till: 49 color:blue text:"Spain" (49)
 from: 0 till: 40 color:blue text:"India" (40)
 from: 0 till: 35 color:orange text:"Mexico" (35)
 from: 0 till: 33 color:red text:"United Kingdom" (33)
 from: 0 till: 30 color:red text:"Russia" (30)
 from: 0 till: 26 color:redl text:"Iran" (26)
 from: 0 till: 25 color:redl text:"Japan" (25)
 from: 0 till: 24 color:brown text:"United States" ($n24)
 from: 0 till: 23 color:brown text:"Brazil" (23)
 from: 0 till: 20 color:brown text:"Australia" (20)
 from: 0 till: 20 color:brown text:"Canada" (20)
 from: 0 till: 19 color:black text:"Turkey" (19)
 from: 0 till: 18 color:black text:"Greece" (18)
 from: 0 till: 17 color:black text:"Poland" (17)
 from: 0 till: 17 color:black text:"Portugal" (17)
 from: 0 till: 16 color:black text:"Czech Republic" (16)
 from: 0 till: 15 color:black text:"Belgium" (15)
 from: 0 till: 15 color:black text:"South Korea" (15)
 from: 0 till: 15 color:black text:"Sweden" (15)


See also


  1. In 1978 two entire cities have been declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site: first Quito in Ecuador, and later Kraków in Poland.[3][4]
  2. This type of recognition exists since 1992.[7]
  3. The World Heritage Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria.[7]


  1. "World Heritage Emblem". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 1 June 2020. Retrieved 1 June 2020.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 "World Heritage". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 5 July 2020.
  3. Hetter, Katia (16 June 2014). "Exploring the world's first 12 heritage sites". CNN. Archived from the original on 26 May 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
  4. "World Heritage List (ordered by year)". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 26 May 2020. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  5. Sullivan, Ann Marie (2016). "Cultural Heritage & New Media: A Future for the Past". John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law. 15: 604–46.
  6. Allan, James R.; Kormos, Cyril; Jaeger, Tilman; Venter, Oscar; Bertzky, Bastian; Shi, Yichuan; MacKey, Brendan; Van Merm, Remco; Osipova, Elena; Watson, James E.M. (2018). "Gaps and opportunities for the World Heritage Convention to contribute to global wilderness conservation". Conservation Biology. 32 (1): 116–126. doi:10.1111/cobi.12976. PMID 28664996. S2CID 28944427.
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 "Criteria for Selection". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 12 June 2016. Retrieved 14 October 2006.
  8. 8.0 8.1 "World Heritage List (ordered by region)". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 5 July 2020.
  9. "The World Heritage Committee". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 5 July 2020. Retrieved 14 October 2006.
  10. "Convention Concerning the Protection of World's Cultural and Natural Heritage" (PDF). UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 July 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
  11. 11.0 11.1 "States Parties – UNESCO World Heritage Centre". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 21 March 2022.
  12. Edmondson, Jordan & Prodan 2020, p. 144.
  13. "Monuments of Nubia-International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 5 July 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
  14. "The Rescue of Nubian Monuments and Sites". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 5 July 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
  15. 15.0 15.1 "The World Heritage Convention – Brief History / Section "Preserving cultural heritage"". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 26 May 2020. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
  16. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage - Complete Text UNESCO. Retrieved 8 June 2021.
  17. 17.0 17.1 "The World Heritage Convention – Brief History / Section "Linking the protection of cultural and natural heritage"". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 26 May 2020. Retrieved 17 July 2019.
  18. "Funding". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 30 May 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  19. "Success stories - successful restorations". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 30 May 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  20. 20.0 20.1 Maurel, Chloé (11 January 2017). "The unintended consequences of UNESCO World Heritage listing". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 27 May 2020. Retrieved 4 September 2017.
  21. 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 "The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 14 July 2017. Retrieved 10 July 2017.
  22. "World Heritage in Danger". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 5 July 2020. Retrieved 10 July 2017.
  23. "Oman's Arabian Oryx Sanctuary : first site ever to be deleted from UNESCO's World Heritage List". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 28 June 2007. Archived from the original on 5 July 2020. Retrieved 10 July 2017.
  24. "Dresden is deleted from UNESCO's World Heritage List". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 25 June 2009. Archived from the original on 7 July 2017. Retrieved 10 July 2017.
  25. "Liverpool stripped of Unesco World Heritage status". BBC News. 21 July 2021. Retrieved 21 July 2021.
  26. Josh Halliday (21 July 2021). "Unesco strips Liverpool of its world heritage status". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 July 2021.
  27. 27.0 27.1 Allan, James R.; Venter, Oscar; Maxwell, Sean; Bertzky, Bastian; Jones, Kendall; Shi, Yichuan; Watson, James E.M. (2017). "Recent increases in human pressure and forest loss threaten many Natural World Heritage Sites" (PDF). Biological Conservation. 206: 47–55. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.011.
  28. Venter, Oscar; Sanderson, Eric W.; Magrach, Ainhoa; Allan, James R.; Beher, Jutta; Jones, Kendall R.; Possingham, Hugh P.; Laurance, William F.; Wood, Peter; Fekete, Balázs M.; Levy, Marc A.; Watson, James E. M. (2016). "Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation". Nature Communications. 7: 12558. Bibcode:2016NatCo...712558V. doi:10.1038/ncomms12558. PMC 4996975. PMID 27552116.
  29. Stone, Peter (2 February 2015). "Monuments Men: protecting cultural heritage in war zones". Apollo – The International Art Magazine. Archived from the original on 26 May 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
  30. Baig, Mehroz (12 May 2014). "When War Destroys Identity". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 26 May 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
  31. "UNESCO Director-General calls for stronger cooperation for heritage protection at the Blue Shield International General Assembly". UNESCO. 13 September 2017. Archived from the original on 26 May 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
  32. O’Keefe et al. 2016.
  33. Matz, Christoph (28 April 2019). "Karl von Habsburg auf Mission im Libanon" [Karl von Habsburg on a mission in Lebanon]. Kronen Zeitung (in Deutsch). Archived from the original on 26 May 2020. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
  34. "Action plan to preserve heritage sites during conflict". United Nations peacekeeping. 12 April 2019. Archived from the original on 27 May 2020. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
  35. Barron, Laignee (30 August 2017). "'Unesco-cide': does world heritage status do cities more harm than good?". The Guardian. London. Archived from the original on 27 May 2020. Retrieved 3 September 2017.
  36. Vallely, Paul (7 November 2008). "The Big Question: What is a World Heritage Site, and does the accolade make a difference?". The Independent. Archived from the original on 27 October 2016.
  37. T.G. (20 July 2016). "Modernist masterpieces in unlikely Asmara". The Economist. Archived from the original on 15 July 2017.
  38. "Great Barrier Reef". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 25 October 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  39. Slezak, Michael (26 May 2016). "Australia scrubbed from UN climate change report after government intervention". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 27 October 2016.
  40. Hasham, Nicole (17 September 2015). "Government spent at least $400,000 lobbying against Great Barrier Reef 'danger' listing". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 28 December 2016.
  41. "UNESCO World Heritage Centre - List of World Heritage in Danger". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Retrieved 25 October 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  42. Readfearn, Graham (22 June 2021). "Political ploys and an ocean jewel: what's behind the UN's 'in danger' warning for the Great Barrier Reef". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 October 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  43. Readfearn, Graham (23 July 2021). "World Heritage Committee agrees not to place Great Barrier Reef on 'in danger' list". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 October 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  44. Caust, Jo (10 July 2018). "Is UNESCO World Heritage status for cultural sites killing the things it loves?". The Conversation. Archived from the original on 30 May 2020. Retrieved 30 May 2020.
  45. "World Heritage List Statistics". UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Archived from the original on 5 July 2020.


External links

Template:Lists of World Heritage Sites