scrb11

Was browsing an iPad app. which shows the UNESCO World Heritage sites (think it's called Heritage). One of the views it offers is a maps view with push-pins corresponding to each site.

So I was struck by the difference between US and Italy:

http://picasaweb.google.com/scrb11/UNESCOSites#

California only has two while Sicily alone has several times that. Mexico also has far more than all of the US.

Certainly the US doesn't have as long a cultural history as Europe. In fact, of the US sites, the only historical ones are Independence Hall and Monticello, while the rest appear to be nature:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list

But given the enormous land mass of the US, it seems odd that there aren't more. And I say that even though I've done far more travel overseas than in the US.

There used to be accusations that the UN had an anti-US bias but that was more in the political realm. Could there have been a bias in the consecration of these natural and cultural monuments to the planet?

nytraveler

No - I think the problem is that we have so few old sights - we have a terrible habit of knockig things down and rebuilding if something is more than 50 or so years old.

flanneruk

"There used to be accusations that the UN had an anti-US bias"

The UN is a club of a couple of hundred countries. It can't have an anti-anything bias - but World Heritage decisions are made by a subcommittee of UNESCO, and those decisions are inevitably going to reflect the effectiveness of applicants' pitches, which in turn partly depend on applicants' attitudes to the UN

The US is deeply, deeply, infected with a national anti-UN bias. It's appointed partisan loudmouth morons like John Bolton as its UN ambassador with a brief to tell the rest of the world everyone's out of step but America.

Such jackasses might be right - but they're unqualified to be ambassadors for any serious country, and aren't going to win any favours from people they delight in insulting.

By contrast, Britain consistently gets dubious sites listed because of properly researched pitches presented by professional diplomats. Liverpool and the absurd Oxfordshire Disneyland, Blenheim, got World Heritage listing because their (frankly: pretty marginal) cases were made by people who'd spent their entire working lives being trained in how to influence other diplomats.

But of course it's easier to blame bias against you than the bumblings of a diplomatic service that reserves its top jobs for amateurs.

travelgourmet

Oh, I don't think there is much bias. I simply think that the US doesn't care. I mean, take a look at the US 'tentative list', which comprises the sites that the appropriate US State Party (I have no idea which group in the US is responsible for maintaining the list) is pushing to be included:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/state=us

Now, compare this to Italy and France:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/state=it
http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/state=fr

The US simply doesn't submit as many sites, perhaps because someone doesn't feel that the US sites measure up, or perhaps because someone feels that the list should be exclusive, or perhaps because someone feels that having many such sites is not worth the time and effort. I vote for not worth the time and effort. Regardless, fewer nominations = fewer sites.

<i>Such jackasses might be right - but they're unqualified to be ambassadors for any serious country, and aren't going to win any favours from people they delight in insulting.</i>

So... The primary criteria for an ambassador is that they get along and don't rock the boat? I would suspect that serious countries believe that the job of the ambassador is to press their country's interest.

Objectively, the UN is pretty much a joke. It lacks any sort of enforcement power and any enforcement mechanisms are little more than window-dressing for traditional state actions. At best, the UN is a convenient forum for relatively banal administrative cooperation, such as the ICAO, but no real diplomacy goes on at the UN. Accordingly, why should one be surprised that the US sends a grade-D diplomat to do a grade-D job? I mean, the US has trouble getting anybody to do the job for more than a year or two and it is considered one of the least desirable foreign service posts (especially due to the lack of living allowances).

quokka

Recieving the status of UNESCO World Heritage requires, first of all, an application from the side of the site in question. If those people who administer the site don't bother to put together an application, which requires quite an effort and some months, if not years of work (I was once asked to do one but had to refuse because of other obligations), there is of course no nomination and no status. The UNESCO do not select the sites. They decide about the applications they receive.

scrb11

Any ideas on what kind of impact being on the UNESCO list has on tourism?

In CA, the two sites are Yosemite and Redwood National Park. But people visiting CA are going to target San Francisco or LA before those two places.

hetismij

scrb - people from Europe visiting Ca on holiday will almost certainly visit Yosemite while in the state. Nothing to do with the UNESCO listing though.

I can't see that UNESCO listing has any affect on tourism at all. Several in the Netherlands and Belgium wouldn't get a second glance from most tourists.

tomboy

I suspect that, since the US has an active National Park/Monument/Etc function within the government, there's no need to invest time/etc. in an effort that, basically, would be of no more marginal value than another URL. The smaller or less developed countries, with less or even no such function, might welcome the faux-protection afforded by such a listing.

flanneruk: "By contrast, Britain consistently gets dubious sites listed because of properly researched pitches presented by professional diplomats. Liverpool and the absurd Oxfordshire Disneyland, Blenheim, got World Heritage listing because their (frankly: pretty marginal) cases were made by people who'd spent their entire working lives being trained in how to influence other diplomats."

In your construction of a case for the inadequacy of US diplomats, you give an excellent example of, and make an excellent case for, the uselessness of diplomats in general.

bardo1

How much "Heritage" can a country less than 250 old have???

sheila

Depends what you think a "country" is, Bardo. My recollection is that it's been there a bittie longer than 250 years.

NeoPatrick

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a site or town has to agree to being a Unesco site along with agreeing to abide by their rules and regulations. For example, once there is a Unesco designation, individual owners in the site can't put up any kinds of signage they want or paint buildings any colors they want or even make any modifications without close scrutiny and approval. My guess is that there aren't a lot of places in the US that would agree to such regulations.

I loved my stay in Luang Prabang, Laos, where the owner of the small hotel I stayed is an active member of the Unesco committee. The entire historic town is a Unesco site. They proudly abide by all regulations, and he is currently building an addition which is quite complicated by the regulations, but he happily likes being consistent with that. And my observation there was that Unesco got to that town before it was too late.

willit

"In CA, the two sites are Yosemite and Redwood National Park. But people visiting CA are going to target San Francisco or LA before those two places."

Maybe most. Personally, I would love to visit Yosemite National Park, but am fairly indifferent to LA or SF.

scrb11

Well overseas visitors are going to land in SFO or LAX most likely.

Fastest way to Yosemite is by car and it's a good 4-hour drive from SFO.

Or you can see a lot more in the SF Bay area within 90-120 minute drive.

Yosemite is worth seeing but it's not as easy to reach as other attractions.

ekscrunchy

I think the UNESCO designation has a huge impact on tourism and in fact, I have read articles to the effect that such a designation (speaking here of sites in SE Asia) results in tourism to the extent that the original character of the town/site is placed in jeopardy. Luang Prabang is one of the places often mentioned in this ongoing discussion.