.

The UNESCO World Heritage Convention:
Congressional Issues
Luisa Blanchfield
Specialist in International Relations
December 8, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40164
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

Summary
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Convention
Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (the World Heritage
Convention) identifies and helps protect international sites of such exceptional ecological,
scientific, or cultural importance that their preservation is considered a global responsibility.
Under the Convention, which entered into force in 1975, participating countries nominate sites to
be included on the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger (Danger List).
Countries that are party to the Convention agree to protect listed sites within their borders and
refrain from actions that might harm such sites in other countries. Currently, the World Heritage
List is composed of 890 natural and cultural sites in 148 countries, and the Danger List includes
31 sites from 25 countries. One hundred and eighty-six countries, including the United States, are
parties to the Convention.
The Obama Administration has requested and provided voluntary contributions to the World
Heritage Fund and has supported U.S. membership on the World Heritage Committee, the
implementing body of the Convention. The Department of the Interior National Park Service
administers the U.S. World Heritage program, processing U.S. nominations and handling other
daily program operations. It administers sites with funds appropriated by Congress, except for
several sites that are owned by states, private foundations, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or
Native American tribes. Twenty sites in the United States are currently included on the World
Heritage List, including the Statue of Liberty, Everglades National Park, and the Yellowstone
National Park. No U.S. sites are currently on the Danger List. In June 2009, however, Secretary
of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that the Obama Administration was taking steps to include
Everglades National Park on the Danger List. The George W. Bush Administration had removed
the site from the Danger List in 2007, maintaining that the United States had made considerable
progress in conserving the park.
Members of Congress have generally supported the World Heritage Convention. The Senate
unanimously provided advice and consent to ratification of the Convention in 1973, and some
Members have supported the inclusion of sites on the World Heritage List or Danger List. In the
mid-1990s, some Members expressed concern that designating U.S. lands and monuments as
World Heritage sites would infringe on national sovereignty. Ultimately, however, U.S.
participation in the Convention does not give UNESCO or the United Nations authority over U.S.
World Heritage sites or related land-management decisions. In addition, some Members have
expressed concern with what they view as the limited role of Congress in nominating U.S. World
Heritage Sites. Under current law, Congress is involved in the nomination of U.S. sites only to the
extent that the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks is required to notify the House
Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and National Resources
regarding which sites he or she plans to nominate for inclusion on the World Heritage List.
This report provides background information on the World Heritage Convention, outlines U.S.
participation and funding, and highlights criteria for adding and removing sites from the World
Heritage Lists. It discusses possible issues for the 111th Congress, including the Convention’s
possible impact on U.S. sovereignty, the role of the legislative branch in designating sites, and the
potential implications for a site’s inclusion on the Lists. The report will be updated as events
warrant.

Congressional Research Service

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
The World Heritage Convention .................................................................................................. 2
World Heritage Committee.................................................................................................... 2
World Heritage Fund............................................................................................................. 3
U.S. Participation........................................................................................................................ 3
Obama Administration .......................................................................................................... 4
Bush Administration ............................................................................................................. 4
Agency Roles and U.S. Nominations..................................................................................... 4
U.S. Contributions ................................................................................................................ 5
Technical Assistance and Other Related Programs ................................................................. 7
U.S. World Heritage Sites Previously on the List of World Heritage in Danger ...................... 7
Congress and the World Heritage Convention........................................................................ 8
Procedures and Criteria for Adding and Removing Sites from the World Heritage Lists ............... 9
World Heritage List............................................................................................................... 9
Adding Sites to the List ................................................................................................... 9
Removing Sites from the List .......................................................................................... 9
List of World Heritage in Danger ........................................................................................ 10
Adding Sites to the Danger List..................................................................................... 10
Removing Sites from the Danger List............................................................................ 11
Policy Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................ 11
Impact on U.S. Sovereignty................................................................................................. 12
Role of the Legislative Branch in Selecting U.S. World Heritage Sites................................. 12
Implications for Inclusion on the World Heritage List.......................................................... 13

Tables
Table 1. U.S. Voluntary Contributions to the U.N. World Heritage Convention,
FY1999 to FY2009 .................................................................................................................. 6

Appendixes
Appendix A. Criteria for Outstanding Universal Value............................................................... 15
Appendix B. Criteria for Inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger .............................. 16

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 17

Congressional Research Service

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

Introduction
During the past two decades, Members of Congress have demonstrated an interest in U.S.
participation in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (popularly
known as the World Heritage Convention). Under the Convention, which entered into force in
1973, countries agree to protect and preserve natural and cultural sites of exceptional ecological,
scientific, or cultural importance through the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage
in Danger (Danger List). Each country that ratifies or accedes to the Convention agrees to protect
listed sites within its borders and refrain from actions that might harm such sites in other
countries. The World Heritage List includes 890 natural and cultural sites in 148 countries.1
Thirty-one sites from 25 countries are on the Danger List.2 As of April 1, 2009, 186 countries are
parties to the Convention.
The United States led the development of the Convention and was the first country to ratify it in
1973.3 Currently, 20 U.S. sites are included on the World Heritage List, including Yellowstone
National Park, the Statue of Liberty, and Everglades National Park. No U.S. sites are listed on the
Danger List. The Obama Administration has expressed its support for the Convention and the
work of the World Heritage Committee. In June 2009, it announced that it would take steps to
place Everglades National Park on the Danger List. (The park was removed from the List in 2007
by the Bush Administration.)
Congressional perspectives on the Convention have varied. Some Members of Congress have
supported the Convention, while others have expressed concern that UNESCO designation of
World Heritage sites in the United States infringes on national sovereignty. Ultimately, however,
U.S. participation in the Convention does not give the United Nations authority over U.S. World
Heritage sites or related land-management decisions. Moreover, some Members have suggested
that Congress should have a greater role in nominating U.S. sites for inclusion on the List.
This report discusses the UNESCO World Heritage Convention and its mechanisms, including the
World Heritage Committee and Fund. It outlines U.S. participation in the Convention, in
particular the role of U.S. agencies, U.S. financial contributions, and technical assistance to World
Heritage sites outside of the United States. It also addresses criteria and procedures for adding
and removing sites from the World Heritage Lists. The report also addresses issues that the 111th
Congress may wish to take into account when considering U.S. participation in and funding of the
Convention—including the possible impact of the Convention on U.S. sovereignty, the role of
Congress in nominating U.S. sites, and the implications of including U.S. sites on the World
Heritage Lists.

1 Of the 890 sites on the list, 689 are cultural, 176 are natural, and 25 are a mix of both. Twenty-seven new sites were
added in 2008, and 13 new sites were added in June 2009. (See http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/453 and
http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/536, respectively.)
2 Article 11(4) of the Convention highlights criteria for the Danger List. For a list of current sites on the List, see
http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/. For more information, see the “List of World Heritage in Danger” section.
3 Parts of this report are drawn from CRS Report 96-395, World Heritage Convention and U.S. National Parks, by Lois
B. McHugh.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

The World Heritage Convention
The World Heritage Convention was adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on November 16, 1972.4 It
established a World Heritage List that identifies cultural and natural heritage sites of “outstanding
universal value.”5 The Convention’s purpose is to identify and help protect worldwide sites of
such exceptional ecological, scientific, or cultural importance that their preservation is a global
responsibility. The Convention also created a List of World Heritage in Danger, which is
composed of sites on the World Heritage List that face significant natural or man-made risk and
dangers. A site must be on the World Heritage List to be considered for inclusion on the Danger
List.
Countries that are party to the Convention agree to protect listed sites and monuments within their
borders and refrain from actions that might harm such sites in other countries. The Convention
recognizes the sovereignty of individual countries, stating that the responsibility for protecting
and conserving World Heritage sites belongs primarily to the country where the site is located.6
States Parties to the Convention (hereinafter referred to as “parties”) agree to help provide such
protection through the World Heritage Committee and Fund.
World Heritage Committee
The World Heritage Committee, which is comprised of 21 members elected by the parties to the
Convention for six-year terms, oversees implementation of the World Heritage Convention.7 Its
primary responsibility is selecting the sites nominated by parties to be included on the World
Heritage List. The Committee also monitors the sites and may make recommendations to improve
the management of a site or place a site on the Danger List. In extreme circumstances, it can
remove a property from the World Heritage List if it determines that a country is not fulfilling its
obligations to protect and preserve the site. Committee decisions are made by a two-thirds
majority of Committee members present and voting. Generally, however, Committee decisions
are made by consensus—particularly those that add sites to the World Heritage List or Danger
List. 8
The Committee has three intergovernmental and non-governmental advisory bodies to provide
advice during its deliberations. They include (1) the International Union for Conservation of

4 UNESCO is one of the specialized agencies of the U.N. system. It is an autonomous intergovernmental organization
with its own constitution, separate budget, and program. It is affiliated with the United Nations through an agreement
signed in 1946. UNESCO’s purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among member
states in the fields of education, science, and culture.
5 Preamble, World Heritage Convention, at http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/.
6 Article 6 of the Convention states that while “fully respecting the sovereignty of the States” on whose territory the
cultural and natural sites are found and “without prejudice to property right provided by national legislation [sic],” the
parties to the Convention recognize that the sites constitute “a world heritage for whose protection, it is the duty of the
international community as a whole to cooperate.” Article 4 notes that each party to the Convention “recognizes that
the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of
the cultural and natural heritage ... situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State.”
7 Though the Committee term is six years, most parties, including the United States, voluntarily choose to be members
for four years to give other parties an opportunity to serve.
8 Article 13(8), World Heritage Convention.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

Nature (IUCN); (2) the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS); and (3) the
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
(ICCROM).9 Some Committee members have advocated improving the Committee’s operations
under an ever-growing work load by focusing on monitoring conditions at existing sites rather
than adding new sites. Nevertheless, new sites are added regularly.10 The UNESCO World
Heritage Centre is the Convention Secretariat, and plays no role in decisions of the Committee.11
Current members of the Committee include Australia, Bahrain, Barbados, Brazil, Cambodia,
China, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, France, Iraq, Jordan, Mali, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, South
Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates.
World Heritage Fund
The World Heritage Committee administers the World Heritage Fund (the Fund), which provides
technical and financial assistance to countries requesting it. Such assistance can include provision
of experts, technicians, skilled labor, equipment, and training, as well as emergency assistance.
World Heritage technical assistance must be requested by a member country in an agreement with
the Committee, which sets conditions for assistance. The majority of the Fund’s income comes
from required member country contributions amounting to about 1% of that member’s UNESCO
dues. The Fund also receives voluntary contributions from governments (including the United
States), foundations, individuals, and national and international promotional activities. Total
funding is usually about $4 million each year. In recent years, requests have largely exceeded
available funds, and the Committee has had to allocate funds according to the urgency of the
request with priority given to the most threatened properties.
U.S. Participation
The United States generally supports the World Heritage Convention.12 It led the creation of the
Convention and ratified it in 1973.13 It has also served multiple terms on the World Heritage
Committee, with its most recent term ending in October 2009. Twenty U.S. sites are included on
the World Heritage List. No U.S. sites are included on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

9 For further information on the World Heritage Committee’s advisory bodies, see http://whc.unesco.org/en/
advisorybodies/.
10 In 2005, the Committee added 25 sites; in 2006 it added 18 new sites; in 2007 it added 22 new sites; and in 2008 it
added 27 sites. As of June 2009, 13 new sites have been added.
11 The Centre is the focal point and coordinator within UNESCO for all matters related to the World Heritage
Convention. For more information, see http://whc.unesco.org/en/134.
12 The United States, for instance, remained active in the Convention and Committee during its withdrawal from
UNESCO between 1994 and 2003. The United States withdrew from UNESCO because, in its view, the agency was
highly politicized, exhibited hostility toward the basic institutions of a free society—especially a free market and a free
press—and demonstrated unrestrained budgetary expansion and poor management.
13 The Senate provided advice and consent to ratification by a vote of 95 in favor and zero against. The United States
ratified the treaty on December 7, 1973. In 1992, the United States hosted a World Heritage Committee meeting in
Santa Fe, New Mexico. The United States is also a member of the World Heritage Committee’s advisory bodies: the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation
and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM).
Congressional Research Service
3

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

Obama Administration
The Obama Administration has stated the importance of preserving World Heritage Sites around
the globe and advocated continued U.S. participation in the World Heritage Committee.14 On June
24, 2009, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that the Administration was taking
steps to include Everglades National Park on the Danger List. (The Bush Administration had
removed the site from the List in 2007, arguing that the United States had made considerable
progress in conserving the park.)15 When announcing the decision, Salazar stated, “The
Everglades was hastily removed from the list in 2007 at the request of the previous
Administration without adequate consultations with the National Park Service, the state of Florida
and other stakeholders.”16 The Administration’s efforts to re-list the Everglades are ongoing.
Bush Administration
The Bush Administration supported U.S. participation in the World Heritage Convention. In
2005, the Administration ran for a seat on the World Heritage Committee, and in January 2008 it
submitted a “Tentative List” of potential U.S. nominations to the World Heritage List. This
Tentative List of 14 new U.S. sites represented the first revision of the U.S. nomination list since
the original list was developed in 1982.17 At the same time, the Administration expressed concern
with the growing number of World Heritage List inscriptions, particularly from regions already
well-represented on the List. It argued that given the limited resources of the World Heritage
Fund, parties to the Convention should focus on protecting and conserving existing sites rather
than adding new ones. The Administration expressed concern that the Danger List has been seen
by many, if not most, parties as a negative designation rather than a mechanism to rally global
support for threatened sites. It also contended that the World Heritage Centre and Committee staff
are stretched by an increasing workload and no commensurate increases in financial resources.18
Agency Roles and U.S. Nominations
The National Historic Preservation Act Amendment of 1980 (P.L. 96-515) charges the
Department of the Interior with coordinating and directing U.S. activities under the World
Heritage Convention, in cooperation with the Departments of State, Commerce, and Agriculture,
the Smithsonian Institution, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.19 The National

14 FY2010 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations, May 2009, p. 130.
15 Statement of Todd Willens, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Before the International Operations and Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights Subcommittee of the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Concerning the Everglades: Protecting Natural Treasures Through
International Organizations, September 19, 2007.
16 U.S. Department of the Interior, “Salazar Moves to Place Everglades National Park Back on List of World Heritage
Sites in Danger,” press release, June 24, 2009, at http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/062409b.html.
17 The U.S. World Heritage Tentative List includes Civil Rights Movement sites in Birmingham and Montgomery,
Alabama; Mount Vernon in Virginia; and White Sands National Monument in New Mexico. For more information, see
http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/New_Tentative_List.htm.
18 The Administration has also expressed concern about the possible devaluing of the World Heritage “brand” because
more sites are continually added, as well as increased politicization of the decision-making process. See “Submission
by the United States of America,” World Heritage Committee Workshop on the Future of the World Heritage
Convention, September 2008.
19 Sec. 401 (a), (b) of P.L. 96-515 (94 Stat. 3000), The National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

Park Service administers the U.S. World Heritage program, processing U.S. nominations and
handling other daily program operations. It administers sites with funds appropriated by
Congress, except for several sites that are owned by states, private foundations, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or Native American tribes.
To be nominated as a U.S. site, property
World Heritage Sites in the United States
owners must engage in an extensive
(year inscribed)
application process through the National
• Mesa Verde National Park, CO (1978)
Park Service.20 The Assistant Secretary
• Yellowstone National Park, WY/MT (1978)
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, who is
the designated executive official
• Everglades National Park, FL (1979)
responsible for the U.S. program,
• Grand Canyon National Park, AZ (1979)
periodically considers applications and
• Independence Hall, PA (1979)
nominates properties on behalf of the
• Kluane/Wrangell-St. Elia/Glacier Bay/
United States. The Assistant Secretary
Tatshenshini-Alsek,* AK (1979, 1992, 1994)
may only nominate non-Federal property
• Redwood National and State Parks, CA (1980)
for inclusion on the List if the property
• Mammoth Cave National Park, KY (1981)
owner agrees to the nomination in
writing. The Assistant Secretary is
• Olympic National Park, WA (1981)
required to notify the House Committee
• Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site, IL (1982)
on Natural Resources and the Senate
• La Fortaleza & San Juan National Historic
Committee on Energy and National
Site, Puerto Rico (1983)
Resources of U.S. selections prior to
• Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
nominating the sites.21
NC/TN (1983)
• Statue of Liberty, NY (1984)
• Yosemite National Park, CA (1984)
U.S. Contributions
• Chaco Culture National Park, NM (1987)
U.S. contributions to the World Heritage
• Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, HI (1987)
Convention are provided through both
• Monticello & University of Virginia, VA (1987)
U.S. assessed contributions to UNESCO
• Pueblo de Taos, NM (1992)
and U.S. voluntary contributions to the
• Carlsbad Caverns National Park, NM (1995)
World Heritage Fund. The U.S. rate of
assessment for the UNESCO regular
• Waterton Glacier International Peace Park,* MT (1995)
budget is 22%, resulting in an assessed
*Transboundary sites with Canada
contribution of approximately
$75,153,000 for FY2009.22 The World Heritage Fund is financed by compulsory contributions of
States Parties to the Convention as well as voluntary contributions. The compulsory contributions
are set at a uniform rate that cannot be in excess of 1% of the States Parties assessed contributions

(...continued)
December 12, 1980.
20 For a detailed description of U.S. nomination procedures for World Heritage sites, see “Guide to the U.S. World
Heritage Program,” National Park Service, Department of the Interior, November 2005, under “Guidebook to the U.S.
World Heritage Program,” at http://www.nps.gov/oia/topics/worldheritage/worldheritage.htm. Also see, “World
Heritage Convention,” 36 CFR § 73.7, Vol. 47, No. 103, May 27, 1982.
21 Sec. 401(a), (b) of P.L. 96-515 (94 Stat. 3000), The National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980,
December 12, 1980.
22 Recent U.S. assessed contributions to UNESCO include $70,924,000 in FY2006 (actual); $73,479,000 in FY2007
(actual); and $77,624,000 in FY2008 (actual).
Congressional Research Service
5

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

to the regular budget. In FY2008, the United States was assessed an estimated $772,860 to the
Fund. It pays this assessment through voluntary contributions to the World Heritage Fund through
the UNESCO International Contributions for Scientific, Education and Cultural Activities
(ICSECA) of the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account. In the past decade,
U.S. contributions to the Convention have ranged from a low of $428,604 in FY2000 to a high of
$700,000 in FY2009. (See Table 1.)
Table 1. U.S. Voluntary Contributions to the U.N. World Heritage Convention,
FY1999 to FY2009
(paid in U.S. dollars)
Fiscal Year
U.S. Contributions (from the IO&P Account)a
1999b $500,000
2000b $428,604
2001b
0.0 (per P.L. 106-429)
2002b $410,000
2003b $435,000
2004
$671,000
2005
$640,000
2006
$671,000
2007
$671,000
2008
$700,000
2009
$700,000
Source: Department of State, Bureau of International Organization Affairs.
a. Pledged amounts may be slightly more than actual contributions due to U.S. proportionate withholding from
World Heritage Committee activities in countries the State Department views as “pariah states.”
b. The United States was not a member of UNESCO during these years.
ICSECA includes funding for a number of UNESCO activities and programs, including the World
Heritage Convention, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), and others.23
Though the United States withdrew from UNESCO from 1984 to 2003, it continued to provide
financial assistance to the Convention through annual voluntary contributions. In 2000, however,
due to concerns over U.S. sovereignty and the limited role of Congress in nominating U.S. World
Heritage sites, Congress passed foreign operations appropriations legislation that prohibited
funding to the World Heritage Fund for FY2001.24

23 Since FY2004, total U.S. voluntary contributions to ICSECA have ranged from $837,000 to $1,889,000. They
include $1,889,000 in FY2004 (actual); $806,000 in FY2005 (actual); $961,00 in FY2006 (actual); $961,000 in
FY2007 (actual); $992,000 in FY2008 (actual); and $1,000,000 in FY2009 (estimate).
24 Sec. 580 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations, 2001 (H.R. 5526,
enacted by reference in Sec. 101(a) of P.L. 106-429; 114 Stat. 1900A-55; November 6, 2000). For more information
see the “Congress and the World Heritage Convention” section.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

Technical Assistance and Other Related Programs
The National Park Service works independently and with other agencies to provide technical
assistance to countries that have ratified or acceded to the World Heritage Convention. The Park
Service also maintains bilateral relationships with counterpart agencies in other countries that
allow them to provide in-country training and assistance at non-U.S. World Heritage sites.25
Additionally, it supports a sister park program where World Heritage sites in the United States
and other countries are paired so that staff can exchange information on site management issues.26
Other U.S. government agencies and programs provide support to the UNESCO World Heritage
sites outside of the United States. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has
provided technical assistance to sites in a number of countries, including Bulgaria, Macedonia,
and Mali.27 Moreover, the Ambassador’s Fund for Cultural Preservation, which was established
by Congress in 2001, provides direct grant support to cultural heritage preservation projects in
developing countries, including World Heritage sites.28
U.S. World Heritage Sites Previously on the List of World Heritage
in Danger
Two U.S. World Heritage sites—Everglades National Park and Yellowstone National Park—have
previously been included on the List of World Heritage in Danger (Danger List). Everglades
National Park was added to the Danger List in December 1993 because of the severe effects of
Hurricane Andrew combined with other issues, such as excess nutrient pollution from agricultural
activities, urban growth, and alteration of natural water flows.29 The World Heritage Committee
removed the Everglades from the Danger List in June 2007 due to U.S. progress in rehabilitating
the site. It remains on the World Heritage List.30
In June 1995, the Department of the Interior notified the World Heritage Committee that
Yellowstone National Park was in danger and requested an on-site visit. In December 1995, a
team organized by the World Heritage Committee visited the Park and decided to add it to the
Danger List. When explaining its decision, the Committee cited several threats—including plans
for a gold mine approximately one mile from the Park, and the introduction of non-native fish

25 Examples of technical assistance programs conducted by the U.S. government in the last five years are available at
http://www.nps.gov/oia/NewWebpages/WHAssistance2.html.
26 For more information, see the National Park Service World Heritage website, at http://www.nps.gov/oia/
NewWebpages/WHAssistance.htm.
27 Ibid.; also see http://www.nps.gov/oia/NewWebpages/WHAssistance3.html.
28 In a House Conference Report to H.R. 5548, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agency Appropriations Act, 2001, Congress directed the State Department to provide up to $1 million for the
Ambassador’s Fund from the appropriated State Department funds. (See H.Rept. 106-1005, October 25, 2000, p. 291 to
H.R. 5548, enacted by Sec. 1(a)(2) of H.R. 4942, and included as Appendix B to that public law; P.L. 106-553 114
Stat. 2762A-51; December 21, 2000). World Heritage sites that received assistance from the Ambassador’s Fund
include the Forest of the Cedars of God in Lebanon, Chan Chan Archaeological Zone in Panama, and Medina of Tunis
in Tunisia. The Fund has supported more than 500 international projects totaling more than $13.4 million.
29 Report of the World Heritage Committee, seventeenth session, December 6-11, 1993, WHC-93/CONF.002/14,
February 4, 1994.
30 World Heritage Committee decision 31COM 7A.12—Everglades National Park, July 2, 2007.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

into Yellowstone Lake. The Committee removed Yellowstone from the Danger List in July 2003,
recognizing U.S. progress in addressing the issues that led to its inclusion on the List.31
Congress and the World Heritage Convention
In 1973, the Senate provided advice and consent to ratification of the World Heritage Convention,
and until the mid-1990s, Members of Congress from both parties generally supported U.S.
participation in the Convention.32 In 1995, when Yellowstone National Park was added to the
World Heritage List in Danger, some Members expressed concern that UNESCO designation of
World Heritage sites on U.S. land would infringe on national sovereignty. Some Members also
maintained that Congress did not have enough of an influence on which U.S. sites were
nominated to the World Heritage List.33 Consequently, from the 104th to 107th Congresses,
Members of the House and Senate introduced variations of a bill entitled the American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act (Land Sovereignty Act), which sought to amend the National Historic
Preservation Act Amendments of 1980 (P.L. 96-515), to give Congress a larger say in which U.S.
sites are nominated for the World Heritage List.34 The House of Representatives passed variations
of the Land Sovereignty Act in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses.35
In 2000, due to similar concerns regarding U.S. sovereignty and the role of Congress in
nominating U.S. sites to the World Heritage List, Congress included Section 580 in the Foreign
Operations, Export Financing, and Related Appropriations Act, 2001,36 which stated that none of
the funds appropriated or made available by the Act may be provided for the UNESCO World
Heritage Fund (P.L. 106-429).37 No related bills were introduced in the 109th or 110th Congress.

31 Congress, for example, appropriated funds to compensate the mine owners for not developing a mine near
Yellowstone Park. See P.L. 105-83 (111 Stat. 68), Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 1998, November 14, 1997. Also see World Heritage Committee decision 27COM 7A.12—Yellowstone, July 5,
2003.
32 On October 26, 1973, the Senate provided advice and consent to U.S. ratification by a vote of 95 in favor and zero
against.
33 For a further discussion of U.S. sovereignty and the role of Congress in nominating World Heritage sites in the
United States, see the “Congressional Issues” section.
34 The most recent version of the Land Sovereignty Act was introduced, but not adopted, in the 107th Congress (H.R.
883). It required congressional authorization for U.S. designation of World Heritage sites, and directed the Department
of the Interior to: (1) determine that the designation of a new site will not adversely affect private land within ten miles
of the site; and (2) report to Congress on the impact of the designation on existing and future land uses and surrounding
private land.
35 See (1) H.R. 3752 [104th], American Land Sovereignty Protection Act of 1996, introduced by Rep. Don Young on
June 27, 1996, and passed by a vote of 246 to 187 on September 26, 1996; (2) H.R. 901 [105th], American Land
Sovereignty Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Don Young on February 27, 1997, and passed by a vote of 236 to 191;
and (3) H.R. 883 [106th], American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Don Young on March 1,
1999, and passed by a voice vote on May 20, 1999. In the 105th, 106th, and 107th Congresses, the Senate introduced, but
did not pass, related bills. (See S. 2098 [105th], S. 510 [106th], and S. 2575 [107th].)
36 Sec. 580 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations, 2001 (H.R. 5526,
enacted by reference in Sec. 101(a) of P.L. 106-429; 114 Stat. 1900A-55; November 6, 2000).
37 Section 580 of the Appropriations Act also stated that no funds may be provided for the UNESCO Man and the
Biosphere Program (MAB). Since 1972, the United States has participated in the MAB program, which is coordinated
by UNESCO. Each participating nation establishes its own domestic MAB program, which includes a wide variety of
ecosystem and biological research. As part of the U.S. MAB program, 47 biosphere reserves have been established in
the United States. For more information, see http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/USAMAB/What%20is%20MAB.html and
http://www.state.gov/www/global/oes/mab.html.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

Procedures and Criteria for Adding and Removing
Sites from the World Heritage Lists
The procedures for adding and removing sites from the World Heritage List and the Danger List
are outlined in the “Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention,” developed by the World Heritage Committee. The guidelines are the main working
tool for the Committee, and are revised periodically to reflect the Committee’s ongoing
experience and evolving situations. They were last updated in January 2008.
World Heritage List
Adding Sites to the List
In order for a site to be added to the World Heritage List, parties must complete a nomination
document that identifies and describes the site, provides justification for its addition to the list,
and highlights conservation and other factors affecting the site. The Convention’s advisory bodies
evaluate whether a site meets the criteria for the List and make recommendations to the
Committee. The recommendations fall into three categories: (1) properties (sites) that are
recommended for inscription without reservation; (2) properties that are not recommended for
inscription; and (3) nominations that are recommended for referral or deferral.
To be selected, sites must meet one or more of a set of criteria demonstrating “outstanding
universal value.” Sites meeting such criteria might be a masterpiece of human creative genius;
represent an outstanding example of a type of building, architecture or technological ensemble or
landscape that illustrates significant stages in human history; or contain superlative natural
phenomena or areas of exceptional beauty. The Committee also takes into consideration the
integrity and/or authenticity of the site and adequate site protection and management. (See
Appendix A for the full list of criteria for outstanding universal value.)
The Committee considers the recommendations of the advisory bodies and decides if a site should
be inscribed on the World Heritage List. The Committee may refer a proposed site back to the
party for additional information, or defer the nomination until additional in-depth study or
assessment is completed or the party submits a substantial revision.
Removing Sites from the List
The Committee may delete a property from the World Heritage List if it determines that the
property has deteriorated to the extent that it has lost the characteristics that led to its inclusion on
the List. It may also be removed from the List if the Committee determines that the party did not
take the measures necessary to protect the site from threats and dangers within the agreed-to time
frame.38 If these conditions apply, the party on whose territory the site is situated is required to
inform the World Heritage Convention Secretariat. Other parties may also inform the Secretariat
if they believe a site should be deleted from the list. In such cases, the Secretariat will verify the

38 Ibid., pp. 51-52.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

source and contents of the information and consult with the concerned party.39 Once a site has
been recommended for deletion by a party, the Secretariat will invite the relevant advisory bodies
to comment on the information received. The Committee will then consider all the available
information, and can vote to remove a site from the list by a two-thirds majority of members
present and voting. A site cannot be removed from the list unless the concerned party has been
consulted. Since the Convention was established, only two sites have been deleted from the
World Heritage List. In 2007, the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in Oman was delisted after the size of
the sanctuary was reduced by 90%. In June 2009, the Dresden Elbe Valley in Germany was
delisted because a four-lane bridge was built in the middle of the site. Both countries concurred
with the removals.
List of World Heritage in Danger
Sites on the World Heritage List that are considered to be seriously endangered may be placed on
the Danger List. These are sites that are in particular danger for which “major operations are
necessary and ... assistance has been requested.... ”40 Two-thirds of Committee members present
and voting are required to add or remove a site from the Danger List, though generally such
decisions are made by consensus.
Adding Sites to the Danger List
The World Heritage Committee is responsible for adding and removing sites to the Danger List.
The Committee may add sites to the Danger List when it determines that the property is
threatened by serious and specific danger; major operations are necessary for the conservation of
the property; and assistance under the Convention has been requested for the property. Article
11(4) of the Convention states that sites “threatened by serious and specific dangers” should be
placed on the list. Examples of such dangers include the threat of disappearance caused by
accelerated deterioration; large-scale public or private projects or rapid urban or tourist
development projects; destruction caused by changes in the use or ownership of the land; major
alterations due to unknown causes; the outbreak or the threat of an armed conflict; and serious
fires, earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions; and other similar circumstances. (See
Appendix B for a full list of criteria for inclusion on the Danger List.)
The criteria for determining whether a site should be placed on the Danger List are divided into
two types of danger: “ascertained dangers” that are permanent and proven dangers; and “potential
dangers” that could have “deleterious effects on its [the site’s] inherent characteristics.”41 The
criteria for cultural sites and natural sites are different. Cultural sites under consideration for the
Danger List must meet at least one of several ascertained or potential danger criteria, including
serious deterioration of materials; significant loss of historical authenticity; lack of conservation
policy; outbreak of threat or armed conflict; and gradual changes due to geological, climatic, or
other environmental factors.42 Natural sites under consideration must meet at least one of
ascertained or potential danger criteria that include (1) a serious decline in the population of the
species of outstanding universal value for which the property was legally established to protect;

39 Ibid.
40 Article 11(4), World Heritage Convention.
41 “Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention,” pp. 47-49.
42 Ibid., pp. 47-50.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

(2) human encroachment on boundaries or in upstream areas which threaten the integrity of the
property; or (3) planned resettlement or development projects within the property or so situated
that the impacts threaten the property.43
When considering a site for the Danger List, the Committee should consult with the concerned
party to develop a program of corrective measures that includes analysis of the present condition
of the site, threats to the property, and the feasibility of implementing corrective measures. In
some instances, the Committee will send a group of observers and/or advisors from its advisory
bodies to visit the site, evaluate the nature of the threats, and propose recommendations. Upon
receiving and considering all relevant information, the Committee determines whether the site
should be added to the Danger List. Once a site is added, the Committee will define the program
of corrective action to be undertaken. Some parties maintain that the consent of the relevant party
must be attained before a site may be placed on the Danger List. In the past, the United States has
both supported and opposed this point of view.
Removing Sites from the Danger List
Generally, sites are removed from the Danger List because the World Heritage Committee feels
that the conditions of the site have improved to the point where the site is no longer in imminent
danger.
However, the Committee may also remove a property from the Danger List when it determines
(1) “the property has deteriorated to the extent that it has lost those characteristics which
determined its inclusion in the World Heritage List” and (2) “the intrinsic qualities of a World
Heritage site were already threatened at the time of its nomination by action of man and where
the necessary corrective measures as outlined by the party at the time, have not been taken within
the time proposed.”44 To date, no site has been removed from the Danger List for these reasons. If
such a removal were to occur, however, the party on whose property the site is located would
inform the Convention Secretariat if (1) the site has seriously deteriorated or (2) the necessary
corrective measures have not been taken within the time proposed. Other parties and
organizations may also recommend a site be removed from the list. In these cases, the Secretariat
will determine the validity and source of the information and consult with the concerned party.
The Secretariat forwards all relevant information to the Committee advisory bodies, who make
recommendations to the Committee. The Committee then votes on whether a site should be
removed from the Danger List.
Policy Issues for Congress
Members of the 111th Congress may take the following issues into account when considering
current or future U.S. World Heritage sites and U.S. participation in and funding of the World
Heritage Convention and its mechanisms.

43 Ibid., p. 49.
44 Ibid., p. 52.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

Impact on U.S. Sovereignty
Opponents of the World Heritage Convention have argued that U.S. participation in the
Convention may allow UNESCO to influence the management of U.S. parks and monuments.
Ultimately, however, U.S. participation in the Convention does not give UNESCO or the United
Nations authority over U.S. World Heritage sites or related land-management decisions.45 In
testimony before Congress, officials from the Departments of State and Interior stated that under
the terms of the World Heritage Convention, site management and sovereignty remain with the
country where the site is located.46 They emphasized that the Convention, including the World
Heritage Committee, has no role or authority beyond listing or de-listing sites and offering
technical advice and assistance to parties.47
In addition, supporters have emphasized that parties to the Convention voluntarily nominate sites
for inclusion on the Heritage Lists and agree to develop laws and procedures to protect the sites
using their own domestic laws. They also maintain that many U.S. World Heritage sites already
receive protection under U.S. law as national monuments or parks. Supporters of the Convention
point to the text of the World Heritage Convention, which recognizes the sovereignty of states
where World Heritage sites are located “without prejudice to property rights provided by national
legislation.”48 The Convention also states that countries where sites reside are responsible for
identifying, protecting, and conserving the site.49
Role of the Legislative Branch in Selecting U.S. World
Heritage Sites
In the past, some Members of Congress have expressed concern with what they view as the
limited role of Congress in nominating U.S. World Heritage Sites. Under the authority of P.L. 96-
515, the National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980, Congress is involved in the
nomination process only to the extent that the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
is required to notify the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on

45 Some often assert that U.S. participation in the Convention might give the United Nations influence and control over
U.S. lands. The international organization actually involved in the Convention is UNESCO. The United Nations does
not have a role under the Convention. In addition, the National Park Service states, “There is an impression that its [the
Convention’s] implications are far greater than they are.... [U.S.] Participation does not infringe on the national
sovereignty of the United States.... A nation that nominates properties to the World Heritage List does not surrender
sovereignty, control, or ownership over them.” (“Guide to the U.S. World Heritage Program,” National Park Service,
Department of the Interior, November 2005, p. 5.)
46 See, for example, ”Statement of John Leshy, Solicitor, Department of the Interior,” before the Senate Committee on
Energy and National Resources Subcommittee on National Parks concerning “Bills to amend... H.R. 901, The
American Land Sovereignty Protection Act ... ” February 12, 1998. Also see, “Testimony of Brooks B. Yeager, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department of the
State,” before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the House Committee on Resources, at a hearing
concerning a “Proposed World Heritage Committee Policy Prohibiting Mining in Areas Surrounding World Heritage
Sites,” October 28, 1999.
47 Further, the National Park Service states, “U.S. laws and regulations affecting the [World Heritage] property are not
superceded or abrogated. Rather, World Heritage listing affirms existing U.S. law.” (“Guide to the U.S. World Heritage
Program,” National Park Service, Department of the Interior, November 2005, p. 5.)
48 Article 6 of the Convention emphasizes respect for the sovereignty of the “States on whose territory the cultural and
natural heritage ... is situated, and without prejudice to property rights provided by national legislation.... ”
49 Article 4, World Heritage Convention.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

Energy and National Resources regarding which sites he or she plans to nominate for the List.50
Some Members of Congress have expressed concern that the executive branch could guide
domestic land use policies—including the designation of World Heritage sites—without
consulting Congress. In particular, some suggest that federal agencies could take into account the
rules of the World Heritage program when making land-use decisions, even if UNESCO has no
control of U.S. World Heritage sites.51
Implications for Inclusion on the World Heritage List
Supporters of U.S. participation in the World Heritage Convention emphasize that there are a
number of benefits to being included on the World Heritage List. They maintain that a site’s
inclusion on the List increases international knowledge, interest, and awareness of the property. In
1993, for example, the World Heritage Committee supported the United States in protecting the
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve by publicizing U.S. concerns about a Canadian pit mine
opening near the Bay, reminding Canada of its obligation under the Convention. Similarly, in
2000, Mexico dropped plans to develop a salt plant on the shore of a gray whale breeding ground
in a protected area designated as a World Heritage site in Mexico.
Supporters also suggest that publicity from a site’s World Heritage listings may lead to increased
tourism, which is often beneficial to economies surrounding the site. Moreover, some emphasize
that international organizations, national governments and foundations often give priority to
World Heritage sites when distributing technical and financial assistance. The National Park
Service maintains that such assistance is particularly significant given the relatively limited
amounts of funding distributed each year by the World Heritage Committee through the World
Heritage Fund (approximately $4 million).52 Finally, supporters emphasize that a World Heritage
listing facilitates an exchange of information that benefits individual sites, particularly those that
are lesser known or in countries that do not have the information or financial resources to
maintain them.53
Opponents of the World Heritage Convention often cite concerns regarding the impact of World
Heritage designation on private property located next to the sites. In particular, some are troubled
by the World Heritage Committee guidelines that allow for buffer zones around sites.54
Opponents suggest that establishing buffer zones in accordance with the Convention may have an
impact on the use of privately owned land near World Heritage sites. Furthermore, some
opponents argue that environmental advocacy groups, or in some cases the federal government,
may use the World Heritage Convention to influence public, and sometimes private, land
management. Opponents, for example, took issue with the Clinton Administration’s efforts to add
Yellowstone National Park to the Danger List. They argued that the Administration was
advocating Yellowstone’s inclusion on the Danger List to bring international attention to the

50 Section 401(a),(b) of P.L. 96-515 (94 Stat.3000), December 12, 1980.
51 This has sparked related concerns that the federal government could undermine local land use decisions based on a
site’s inclusion on the World Heritage List, perhaps without the advice or knowledge of local authorities or property
owners.
52 “Guide to the U.S. World Heritage Program,” p. 7.
53 Ibid.
54 “Wherever necessary for the proper conservation of the property, an adequate buffer zone should be provided.” See
“Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention,” January 2008, pp. 26-27, available
at http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

opening of a gold mine on nearby private and U.S. Forest Service land, possibly placing
additional pressure on the company to not develop the mine.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

Appendix A. Criteria for Outstanding
Universal Value
Source: “Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention,”
January 2008, pp. 20-21.55
“The [World Heritage] Committee considers a property as having outstanding universal value if
the property meets one or more of the following criteria. Nominated properties shall therefore:
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 toa 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) to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and
aesthetic importance;
viii) 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;
ix) 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; and
x) 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.”

55 The Operational Guidelines are available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

Appendix B. Criteria for Inclusion on the List of
World Heritage in Danger
Source: “Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention,”
January 2008, pp. 48-49.
“Criteria for Cultural Sites—List of World Heritage in Danger
Ascertained danger:
i) serious deterioration of materials;
ii) serious deterioration of structure and/or ornamental features;
iii) serious deterioration of architecture or town-planning 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; or
Potential danger:
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 of threat or armed conflict;
vi) gradual changes due to geological, climatic, or other environmental factors.”
“Criteria for Natural Sites—List of World Heritage in Danger
Ascertained danger:
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.;
Congressional Research Service
16

---

.
The UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Congressional Issues

iii) Human encroachment on boundaries or in upstream areas which threaten the integrity of
the property; or
Potential danger:
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.”56

Author Contact Information

Luisa Blanchfield

Specialist in International Relations
lblanchfield@crs.loc.gov, 7-0856



56 Additional factors the World Heritage Committee may wish to take into account when considering adding a site to
the Danger List are listed on page 50 of the “Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention,” January 2008.
Congressional Research Service
17

---