May–October (Singapore and Malaysia): south-west monsoon winds blow sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulate-laden smoke from Indonesia over downwind neighbours Singapore and Malaysia.
March–May (North and South Korea, Japan): spring sandstorms from the Gobi and its desertified fringes carry yellow dust through northern China (including Beijing) across North and South Korea to Japan. In 2006 Beijing was hit by 17 spring sandstorms.
November–March (North Asia): surge in air pollution particulates as a result of increased burning at coal-fired power plants to provide winter heating.
Transboundary environmental problems can be a significant source of international dispute and can affect tourism. Within national jurisdictions the cost of solving a pollution problem is usually borne by the polluter under the ‘polluter pays’ principle or govern- ment will step in to regulate offending polluters.
However, transboundary pollution can be much more difficult to manage as it can be perceived as one country interfering in the affairs of another and as a means of imposing costs on production. The transfer
of blame is also commonplace. For example, China blames Hong Kong companies for polluting the Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region and Guandong province because they own some of the polluting fac- tories in the province. Similarly, Indonesia argues that Singaporean and Malaysian companies own the oil palm and timber plantations where the fires used as part of the land clearance are causng the smoke.
Relevant international agreements may exist. For example, Malaysia and Singapore are parties to the 2002 ASEAN haze pact, but even though Indonesia is a member of ASEAN it has not signed the pact, thus limiting Malaysia’s and Singapore’s legal capac- ities to encourage the Indonesian government to act.
Furthermore, even though such forest fires, along with emissions from China’s coal-fired power sta- tions, are substantial contributors of greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries such as Indonesia and China were excluded from the first (2008–2012) round of emissions cuts.
The situation in East Asia is therefore potentially only going to get worse for some tourism destinations, as well as the people who live there, before it gets better.
See: Singapore Institute of International Affairs Haze Watch: http://www.siiaonline.org/hazewatch. A web-archive feature to provide public access and awareness building for the Institute’s advocacy/research activities and resources related to ongoing transboundary haze prevention efforts in the region.
Environmental law may be broadly cate- gorised as having two components: ‘protective’
and ‘exploitative’. ‘Protective’ rules protect the natural environment from human activity and conserve the built and cultural environments, while ‘exploitative’ rules control the disposition of natural resources and facilitate development.
Legislation may combine both components, but conceptually it may be useful to separate them.
Although the setting aside of areas (such as national parks, wilderness areas and reserves) that are also significant tourist attractions for the pro- tection of species and biodiversity is an important part of international strategies for sustainable de- velopment, such a protective component is not new at the international level. For example, the Convention for the Preservation of Wild Animals, Birds and Fish in Africa was signed in London in May 1900. The first convention to refer to the preservation of wilderness areas was the 1940 Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere, which was restricted to members of the Organization of American States (formerly the Pan American Union). This Convention defines in Article 1(4) the expression ‘Strict Wilderness Reserve’: ‘A region under public control characterized by primitive conditions of flora, fauna, transporta- tion and habitation wherein there is no provision for the passage of motorized transportation and all commercial developments are excluded.’ This definition is complemented by Article 4, which states: ‘The contracting governments agree to maintain the strict wilderness reserves inviolate as far as practicable except for duly authorized sci- entific investigations or government inspection or such uses as are consistent with the purposes for which the area was established.’
As Lyster (1985: 96) commented, the Conven- tion ‘was a visionary instrument, well ahead of its time in terms of the concepts it espouses’. It preceded the United States Wilderness Act by some 24 years. Its great weakness was that it did not establish an administrative structure to im- plement its terms. This may be compared with the World Heritage Convention, which we shall examine below, which has a World Heritage
Bureau and a mechanism with which to imple- ment its terms. Nevertheless, the objectives of the Western Hemisphere Convention set an im- portant precedent in the field of international conservation and environment agreements. The Convention’s preamble states that it is the desire of the parties to:
protect and preserve in their natural habitat repre- sentatives of all species and genera of native flora and fauna, including migratory birds, in sufficient numbers and over areas extensive enough to assure them from becoming extinct through any agency within man’s control.
. . . protect and preserve scenery of extraordi- nary beauty, unusual and striking geologic forma- tions, regions and natural objects of aesthetic, historic or scientific value, and areas characterized by primitive conditions in those cases covered by this Convention. (World Heritage Convention 1981) These goals were to be achieved through the establishment of national parks, reserves, nature monuments and strict wilderness reserves.
Although the Convention has become something of a ‘sleeping treaty’ (Lyster 1985: 111), in terms of its implementation throughout much of the Americas, it still remains a significant agreement in international conservation. The precedent established by the Convention has also had im- plications in domestic disputes surrounding the preservation of wilderness areas. For example, Guilbert (1973, in Coggins and Wilkinson 1981:
785) argued that the convention places an obli- gation on the United States to keep wilderness areas inviolate. However, ‘no court has yet ac- cepted or even seriously considered Mr Guilbert’s unique thesis’ (Coggins and Wilkinson 1981:
787). In Australia, the Convention was referred to in the Franklin Dam case (Coper 1983) in the High Court in establishing the degree of interna- tional concern surrounding the preservation of the world’s heritage. Therefore international in- stitutional arrangements, such as those of conser- vation law and regulation, can substantially influence domestic conservation policies from the national through to the local level, an issue dis- cussed with respect to the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
The World Heritage Convention
The philosophy behind the Convention is straight- forward: there are some parts of the world’s natural and cultural heritage which are so unique and scien- tifically important to the world as a whole that their conservation and protection for present and future generations is not only a matter of concern for indi- vidual nations but for the international community as a whole (Slatyer 1983: 138).
World Heritage Sites are contemporary tourism magnets and national icons that continue to influ- ence present values. They are treasures in the fullest and deepest sense. They must be managed in such a way that they are preserved for future generations and at the same time presently made accessible to the public for its education and enjoyment. Finding the proper balance between these two demands is the difficult and important task of World Heritage Site managers (ICOMOS 1993: 1).
The Convention for the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage (WHC), to give it its full name, was adopted by a UNESCO Conference on 16 November 1972. The Conven- tion came into force in December 1975, when 20 nations ratified it. The Convention is ‘an innovative legal instrument’ (Slatyer 1984: 734), designed to enable nations to cooperate in the protection of cultural and natural sites of out- standing value to humanity. ‘The Convention provides a permanent legal, administrative and fi- nancial framework for international co-operation for the safe guarding of the cultural and natural heritage of mankind’ (Australian Heritage Com- mission 1983: 5.1) and may be regarded as one of the pinnacles of world conservation (Fyall and Leask 2006).
The signatories commit themselves to assist in the identification, protection, conservation and preservation of World Heritage properties. They undertake to refrain from ‘any deliberate meas- ure which might damage directly or indirectly’
cultural or natural heritage (Art. 6(3)), and to
‘take appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures necessary for [its] identification, protection, conservation, presentation and rehabilitation’ (Art. 5d).
The Convention is administered by the Inter- governmental Committee for the Protection of
the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, com- monly referred to as the World Heritage Com- mittee, which is composed of 21 states elected at a general assembly of State Parties to the Con- vention every two years. The committee is the key policy and decision-making body. It is re- sponsible for all decisions pertaining to nomina- tions to the World Heritage List and the World Heritage in Danger List, and to requests for assis- tance under the World Heritage Fund. As the operational guidelines for the implementation of Plate 6.1 Franklin Dam site, Tasmania, Australia.
Australia’s accession to the World Heritage Convention provided the necessary legal basis to stop the dam from being built in 1983 and reducing the high wilderness qualities of the region. The case was an important precedent with respect to the interpretation of obligations under international heritage law.
the Convention noted, the committee has three essential functions:
(i) to identify, on the basis of nominations submit- ted by State Parties, cultural and natural prop- erties of outstanding universal value which are to be protected under the Convention and to list those properties on the ‘World Heritage List’;
(ii) to decide which properties included in the World Heritage List are to be inscribed on the
‘List of World Heritage in Danger’;
(iii) to determine in what way and under what con- ditions the resources in the World Heritage Fund can most advantageously be used to assist State Parties, as far as possible, in the protection of their properties of outstanding universal value (World Heritage Committee 1984: 3).
The committee elects a bureau that is respon- sible for detailed examination of new nomina- tions and requests for funding. The bureau consists of a chairperson, a rapporteur and five vice-chairpersons elected from World Heritage Committee membership. The committee and the bureau receive technical advice for ‘cultural’ sites from the International Council for Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Cen- ter for Conservation in Rome (ICCROM), while for ‘natural’ properties the advisory body is the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). UNESCO provides a secretariat to help implement the deci- sions of the committee. A World Heritage Fund has also been established to provide financial and technical assistance to those nations that other- wise would not be in a position to fulfil their obligations under the Convention.
All signatories to the Convention are invited to identify and submit nominations of outstanding universal value to the World Cultural and Natural Heritage List. This is a ‘select list of the most outstanding’ cultural and natural properties ‘from an international viewpoint’ (World Heritage Committee 1984: 4). Cultural property nominated to the World Heritage List (WHL) should:
(i) represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; or
(ii) exhibit an important interchange of human val- ues, 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; or
(iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; or
(iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building or architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; or
(v) be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement or land-use which is repre- sentative of a culture (or cultures), especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change; or
(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 justify inclusion in the List only in exceptional circumstances and in conjunction with other criteria cultural or natural). (UNESCO 1999: Sec. 24)
In addition cultural sites have to meet the test of authenticity in design, material, workmanship or setting and in the case of cultural landscapes their distinctive character and components and have adequate legal and/or contractual and/or tra- ditional protection and management mechanisms to ensure the conservation of the nominated cul- tural properties or cultural landscapes. Natural property nominated to the WHL should:
(i) be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth’s history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of land forms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features; or (ii) be outstanding examples representing sig-
nificant 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; or
(iii) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aes- thetic importance; or
(iv) 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. (UNESCO 1999: Sec. 44)
Nominations need to provide a detailed ac- count of the characteristics of each site (World Heritage Committee 1984). Each nomination must be endorsed by the national government, and be signed by the government authority re- sponsible for the implementation of the conven- tion. Following endorsement, the nomination is sent to the UNESCO Secretariat via the UNESCO National Commission of the nominat- ing signatory. The Secretariat passes nominations for cultural properties to ICOMOS or ICCROM and for natural properties to IUCN. These bodies rigorously analyse the nomination to determine whether the property concerned meets the World Heritage criteria and is of outstanding universal value. The World Heritage Bureau, acting upon the advice of ICOMOS, ICCROM or the IUCN, can make three types of recommendations to the World Heritage Committee. Nominations may be accepted, rejected or deferred until further in- formation is available.
The commitment of the World Heritage Com- mittee to ensure that the WHL retains the criteri- on of universal significance in the assessment of nominations is indicated in its willingness to reject or defer unsuitable nominations. The acceptance of nominations to the list which are clearly not of World Heritage standard is regarded as devaluing the purpose of the Convention and the protection that it provides for the world’s cultural and natu- ral heritage. Through the international and na- tional attention focused on the nomination process, ‘the inclusion of a property on the World Heritage List should give added protection to the site’ (Slatyer 1983: 142). In addition to the pres- tige attached to a World Heritage site, a degree of protection under international law, and a possible increase in the attraction of the site as a tourism destination may be expected. Yet, the WHL is not necessarily unchanging.
Properties that have been degraded through either human or natural causes may be deleted from the WHL and placed on the World Heritage in Danger List. It is hoped that the prospect of a site being placed on the latter list will focus enough attention to save it before the ‘symbolic fate’ of deregistration occurs. Furthermore, the World Heritage Committee is constantly seeking
to update the procedures by which nominations are reviewed in order to ensure that nominated properties fit the criteria for World Heritage listing.
The sites of the WHL can be classified into cultural, natural or mixed sites depending on which criteria they meet. Table 6.1 reports the numbers and percentages of cultural, natural and mixed heritage sites on the WHL as of December 1998 and 2006. Cultural listings far outnumber natural sites, in spite of the fact that the Opera- tional Guidelines recommend a balance between the two categories. However, according to von Droste (1995), Director of the World Heritage Centre and editor of the World Heritage Newsletter, despite the continuous expansion of properties on the WHL each year it does still not fully reflect the world’s cultural and natural di- versity. Pocock (1997) is also critical of the greater attention given in the Operational Guide- lines to the inscription criteria for cultural prop- erties compared to natural properties. The Committee has recommended that measures be taken to improve the balance between cultural and natural heritage. One way they hope to achieve this is by offering assistance in the prepa- ration of nominations of types of properties under-represented in the WHL. There have been a number of suggestions as to why the existing imbalance has occurred, including the fact that there are few parts of the natural world un- touched or influenced by humankind in some
Table 6.1 World Heritage List sites by status, 1998–2006
Percentage Number of sites of sites (%)
Category 1998 2006 1998 2006
Cultural 445 644 76.5 77.6
Natural 117 162 20.1 19.5
Mixed 20 24 3.4 2.9
Total 582 830 100 100
Source: UNESCO.
way, and nominations for often larger natural areas can be associated with controversy and op- posed at a local level for commercial and eco- nomic reasons. For example, the nomination of Australia’s Wet Tropics World Heritage area resulted in conflict between environmentalists and professional scientists with logging compa- nies and the Queensland government (Hall 1992a, 2006d).
It has been argued that the nomination process and the additional prestige gained by re- ceiving World Heritage status serves to increase the attraction of a site as a potential tourist desti- nation for both domestic and international tourists (Fyall and Leask 2006). Given the quali- ties possessed by World Heritage sites it is not surprising that they are popular tourist attrac- tions and destinations. For example, Shackley observes that, ‘such sites are magnets for visitors and the enrolment of a new property on the World Heritage List, with the concomitant pub- licity, is virtually a guarantee that visitor num- bers will increase’ (Shackley 1998, Preface).
Similarly, Cook (1990 in Drost 1996: 481) ob- serves, ‘It appears that designation does increase
visibility through public information generated by the World Heritage Committee, the host State and the private sector.’ However, Ashworth and Tunbridge (1990) take a more jaundiced view, noting, ‘The coveted UNESCO designation of World Heritage Site is used for national aggran- dizement and commercial advantage within the international competition for tourists, more often than it is a celebration of an international identity.’ Indeed, empirical research suggests that the causal link between World Heritage listing and increased visitation over and above existing tourism trends is tenuous (Hall and Piggin 2001;
Buckley 2002).
Despite a lack of empirical evidence of a causal relationship between World Heritage list- ing and tourism growth, tourism is still perceived as a means to justify listing to some stakeholders who might otherwise be opposed and also as a way to help ensure the conservation of World Heritage sites through revenue generation, aware- ness raising and, possibly, improved management and planning practices (Harrison and Hitchcock 2005; Fyall and Leask 2006). The philosophy un- derlying the Convention also has implications Plate 6.2 Mount Cook National Park, New Zealand. The park is part of the South
Westland World Heritage Area and is a major attraction for visitors interested in natural history and the environment.