THE ECONOMY OF PRESERVATION World Heritage as economic value Denis Leontiev Project consultant: Sergey Sitar

The Heritage market

Coincidence or not but the economic crisis of the early 70s came roughly at the same time as launch of a global heritage market initiated by the signing of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (Convention) in 1972. This paper looks at the cor- relation between the development of the free market and developments in the fi eld of historic building preservation. Outlines potential scenario of UNESCO funding restructure and its effects on the World Heritage market.

Economy

The early 70’s signaled the end of a long period of continuous growth in the Western world by the failing of the Breton-woods fi nancial system in 1971, oil crisis of 1973 and the banking crisis of 1974. It was a time of rethinking of economic paradigm which has prevailed since World War II. Just before in the late 60s, concurrent initiatives of the UNESCO and the White house laid the foundations for a World Heritage Convention. In 1972, during the recession UNESCO Convention was adopted. The idea of the protection of the world heritage had been discussed in various forms during the1960’s. In 1965 the UNESCO supported the establishment of International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and with its assistance starts the preparation of a draft convention on the protection of cultural heritage. In the same time the actively promotes the idea of establishing the World Heritage Trust which would protect natural and historic areas around the globe. Though the ideological foundations of this new world heritage organization had been developed during the economic con- ditions of Post World War II economic expansion, its implementation started in new economic reality - the period of Washing- ton consensus. This term “Washington consensus” was coined by John Williamson in 1989 to summarize reforms which developing coun- tries should follow: “The three big ideas here are macroeconomic discipline, a market economy, and openness to the world”.1 Later the term has been wider interpreted and argued.2 I use this term to label an new period of economy globalization which absorbed developing countries in the global economy. The Washington Consensus is started in the 1980’s and fi nished dur- ing the economic crisis of 2008. Among the most growing sectors of the service economy have been: tourism, entertainment technology and information-based services. The introduction of the World Heritage List and subsequent listing of many heritage sites corresponded with the rapid increase of tourism and number of national heritage trusts members. Global mass tourism inevitably transforms World Heritage Sites to economic assets and lies on the basis of a World Herit- age monetization. Annually preservation of UNESCO World Heritage generates through its 911 sites at least 60 billion euro of income.3 Although this is only 1% of total global tourist economy,4 the potential economic benefi ts which UNESCO World Heritage status gives to the site has the tendency to prevail over the cultural aspects of preservation.

“To get the World Heritage status is important,” revealed Gao Zhikai, an offi cial at the Yin ruins in Henan province. “In , once you get the title, you get a large budget for protection”.5

With the estimated growth of tourism this annual income will most likely double by 2020. Gradual transition of heritage into the domain of the market economy lead to the fact that economic benefi t has inevitably become a central motivation for preservation of cultural monuments: as a result, preservation today can be compared to an industry. This tendency raises the question of the initial goals of World Heritage Convention, such as “ ... provides that it will maintain, increase, and diffuse knowledge, by assuring the conservation and protection of the world’s heritage“.6

1 Williamson, John, Did the Washington Consensus Fail?. Speech at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, Washington, 6.11.2002. 2 Williamson, John, A Short History of the Washington Consensus. Conference “From the Washington Consensus towards a new Global Gov ernance Barcelona: 24–25.09.2004. 3 It can be calculated as 420 mln international visitors * 140 euro (daily tourist expenses) = 58,1 bln euro. Even we will add local tourism: 200 mln local tourists * 30 euro (daily tourist expenses) = 6 bln euro. In total it will be 64 bln euros. 4 Tourism 2020 Vision Study, UNWTO, 2002. 5 China spends billions on restoration as it touts for tourists. The Telegraph, 29 Jan 2011. 6 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO: Paris, 1972. 5 2 3 4 crisis Current 880 mln 8 n Dow Jones Dow index economic 275 mln $ 22 Number of Heritage World properties NN WW pp 911 9 National Trust of America assets total NN oo t Number of international tourist N i to 3,5 mln Number of National Trust of UK members 3 N N o m

2008 n ml 0 700 mln 7707 90 690 6 1 lnln mm

19 2,19 mln 2,19222,22 5 $ n 335 33 1979-2008 00 ml 500 mln 5 29 mln $ 29 mln $ Washington consensus Washington n 4 848 300 mln 300 ml n n Unesco Worldd heritaheritagege convention 1972 ml 26 ml

Financial World heritagege Trust 11972972 200 mln 200 1971-1979 0,26 mln 00, & oil crisis & oil

1970 ds o i 1945-1970 tage per i Review of Globalisation and its discontents» Review of Globalisation and its discontents» National Trust’s chief retiring, National Trust’s er Juxtaposition of economic & of economic Post WW II economic boom II economic WW Post h heritage periods heritage Kennicott, Philip 2009 Post, 4 November, Washington UWTO Statistic, 2009 UWTO (1895-2007) Timeline Trust National http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-trust/w-thecharity/w-thecharity_our-past/w-history_trust-timeline.htm UNESCO Statistic, 2010 Report . 2009 Annual USA for Historic Preservation NT Williamson, John « Economic, 1989 conference by Peterson Institute for International 5 3 4 1945 1 2 WW II World Heritage Sites parametre

Direct Flights Visitors Visitors Amazon J-Store from 10 most states World Heritage Site Name National International books Mentioned km tourist active criterias fee euro airport km airport quantity of quantity Admission countries Distance to to Distance date of inscription of date Distance to McD McD to Distance > 8 direct flights from free > 1000 > 10000 < 4 > 5 mln visitors countries ticket books articles km till the site

CAN,CHN, US, JPN, GER, max Australia Sydney Opera House 2007 17€ 7 000 000 433 2866 3 17 UK

RUS,CAN,FR,NL,IT,UK,US,C Historic Centre of Vienna 2001 3 - 4 429 272 2456 44615 0,5 20 HN, JPN,GER RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, min Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay 1979 3€ 9 3 200 000 408 891 8 376 UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, France Chartres Cathedral 1979 3 free 1 500 000 66 2867 0,5 114 UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, France Palace and Park of Versailles 1979 3 € 33 2 800 000 561 24194 0,7 45 UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, France Palace and Park of Fontainebleau 1981 2 € 11 3 000 000 127 5956 4 80 UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, France Pont du Gard (Roman Aqueduct) 1985 3 € 12 1 100 000 202 1472 4,8 130 UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, France Paris, Banks of the Seine 1991 3 € 35 10 000 000 14628 359413 0,4 45 UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, France The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes 2000 3 € 10 800 000 211 2353 15 200 UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Germany Cologne Cathedral 1996 3 free 9 000 000 20 3808 0,1 16,3 RUS, FR,UK,NL, GER, IT

RUS, CAN, US, CHN, GER, Acropolis, Athens 1987 5€ 12 1 355 720 206 6437 0,7 35 IT, FR, UK, NL

Italy Historic Centre of Florence 1982 5€ 50 3 150 000 2832 51748 0,9 20 RUS, FR, US, UK,NL,GER, IT

Italy Venice and its Lagoon 1987 6 € 33 2 091 596 5 455 718 2745 35267 1,1 20 RUS, FR, US, UK,NL,GER, IT

Italy Early Christian Monuments of Ravenna 1996 4€ 9 820 000 247 5600 1 73 GER, FR, IT, UK

Italy City of Verona 2000 2 € 8 min 1 million 340 8958 0,1 54 GRE, FR, IT, GB, RUS, NL RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, Holy See Historic Centre of Rome, the Properties of the Holy See 1980 5€ 25 10 000 000 5600 109 533 0,8 10 UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, Holy See 1984 4€ 15 4 200 000 160 17 569 0,8 10 UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and FR, CHN, IT, US, NL, GER, 1994 2€ 10 - 1 000 000 1313 24160 117 Otsu Cities) JPN Japan Itsukushima Shinto shrine 1996 4€ 2 2 600 000 2 135 5,1 79 CHN, JPN

Peru Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu 1983 4€ 44 600 000 800 000 232 660 200 -

Spain Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzn, Granada 1984 3€ 11 2 900 000 222 2128 27 140 RUS, UK, GER, NL, IT, FR

RUS,NL, FR, IT, UK, US, Works of Antoni Gaudi 1984 3€ 11 min 2 000 000 21 348 1,5 17 GER, CAN

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites 1986 3€ 10 1 100 000 227 2031 15 116 UK, NL, JPN, GER, IT

Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, UK 1987 3€ 10 1 394 427 74 9380 0,7 27 Margaret's Church UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Cambodia Angkor 1992 4€ 14 400 000 2 100 000 352 232 NO 10 CHN

Memphis and its Necropolis the Pyramid Fields from Giza to RUS, GER, FR, IT, UK, CHN, 1979 3€ 48 400 000 4 600 000 282 2575 3,2 51 Dahshur US

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, Taj Mahal 1983 1 € 10 1 200 000 1 200 000 141 843 2,6 218 UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Indonesia Borobudur Temple Compounds 1991 3€ 14 2 468 864 111 136 56 263 37 540 CHN, JPN, NL, GER

Iraq Samarra Archaeological City 2007 3 - 0 55 886 No 100 - NL, FR, IT, UK, US, Jordan Petra 1985 3€ 39 320 000 1 280 000 139 2187 128 214 GER,CHN, RUS, CAN Morocco Medina of Marrakesh 1985 4€ 4 200 000 900 000 27 793 2,7 5 FR,IT,UK,GER,NL

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, China The Great Wall 1987 5 € 32 16 000 000 8 200 000 519 37293 30 UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT Imperial Palaces of the Ming and Qing Dynasties in Beijing and RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, China 1987 4€ 6 5 200 000 1 800 000 132 7736 2,6 30 Shenyang UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, China : an Imperial Sacrificial Altar in Beijing 1998 3€ 2 around 12 000 000 18 6223 3 30 UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT

Iran Meidan Emam, Esfahan 1979 3 free no visitors statistic 43 2 NO 450 JPN, CHN, GER, IT, NL, UK, RUS, FR Mexico Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-Itza 1988 3 5 € 1 200 000 1 400 000 165 1640 32 155 US, IT

RUS, CAN, CHN, FR, US, Kremlin and Red Square, Moscow 1990 4 12 € 1 00 673 72 5699 0,3 42 UK,NL, JPN, GER, IT es State filters World Heritage statistic GDP: Employment: Occupation World Heritage replicas and copies GPD per Tourism Total AG/IND/SE (buildings and theme park copies) capita Total Contribution RV Contribution (Tourism) Tentativelist

Tourism Tourism most copied sites depended depended >20 Theme Park Shenzhen (CHN), Huaxi Village (CHN), Minimundus (AUS), $41 300 4/21/75 13,0% 16,2% 3 Minisiam (TH), Aiins world(KR)

Aiins world (KR), Minimundus (AUS) $40 300 5/27/67 11,8% 12,7% 3

Window of the World (CHN)

Aiins world (KR)

Window of the World (CHN) Tobu world square (JPN), Aiins world (KR), Los Angeles Theater (USA)

Fontainebleau Hotel, Foshan (CHN), TIENS Palace (CHN), Beijing Laffitte Hotel (CHN), Aiins world (KR)

Window of the World (CHN) $33 100 4/24/72 9.1% 10,2% 35

Las Vegas(US), San Francisco City Hall (US) Eifel towers: (JPN), Window of the World (CHN), Mini Paris Tianducheng (CHN), New South China Mall Dongguan (CHN), Miinimundus (AUS), Walt Disney World’s Epcot (US), Fayetteville (US), Bloemfontein (ZA), Da Lat (VN), Parizh(RUS), Slobozia (ROM), Falconcity of Wonders Dubai (OAE),Dubai Global village(OAE), Genting Highlands (MY), Minisiam (MY), Filiatra (GR), Aktau (KZ), Tobu world square (JPN), , Ains World (KR).

Tobu world square (JPN) , Aiins world(KR)

Window of the world (CHN), Minisiam(TH) $35 900 2/30/68 4,6% 4,9% 15

Nashville, Tennessee (US), Walhalla temple(GER), Scottish Acropolis(UK), Window of the world(CHN), Minimundus (AUS), Tobu world square (JPN), $30 200 12/22/65 15.8% 8,0% 8 Minisiam(TH), Aiins world (KR).

Window of the world ( Piazza della Signoria )

Venetian Macao(CHN), New South China Dongguan (CHN), Window of the world (CHN)Daniels & Fisher Tower (US), Walt Disney World’s Epcot (US), Venetian hotel (US), St Mark's Campanile (US), Falconcity of Wonders (OAE), Genting Highlands (MY),Tobu world square (JPN), $30 700 4/32/65 8.6% 3,7% 41 Power house Taplin Gorge Dam (US)

St. Anthony's Roman Catholic Church Wilmington, Delaware (US) Caesars Palace Las Vegas(US), minimundus(AUS), New South China Mall Dongguan (CHN), Tobu world square (JPN), Lote world korea (KR), Minisiam (TH), Aiins world (KR) Walt Disney World’s Epcot(US), Tobu world square (JPN), Metropolitan no data no data no data no data 0 Cathedral Brasilia (Pieta), Minimundus (AUS)

Byodo-in Temple, O'ahu, Hawaii (US) $34 200 4/26/70 6.8% 7,1% 14 Walt Disney World’s Epcot (US), Tobu world square (JPN), Window of the World (CHN) Aiins world (KR) $9 200 1/24/76 10,4% 8,8% 6 Islamic Civilization Park (MY), Tobu world square (JPN), Window of the world (CHN) $29 500 4/24/72 14.4% 12,7% 24 Tobu world square (JPN) Window of the world(CHN), Aiins world (KR) Minimundus (AUS)

Stonehenge Kerville (US), Maryhill Stonehenge Washington (US), Foamhenge, Virginia (US), Stonehenge Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), Window of the World (CHN), Aiins world (KR) $35 100 1/18/80 6.9% 7,6% 15

Tobu world square (JPN), Window of the world (KR), Aiins world (KR).

Window of the world (CHN), Tobu world square (JPN), Minisiam (TH), Aiins $9 800 18/13/68 19,7% 17,1% 9 world (KR)

Falconcity of Wonders (OAE), Window of the world (CHN), Las Vegas (US), $6 200 32/17/51 15,8% 13.9% 32 Tobu world square (JPN) Aiins world (KR) Minmundus (AUS), Falconcity of Wonders(OAE), Dhaka (BD), Window of the world (CHN), Tripoli Shrine Temple (USA),Trump Taj Mahal (USA), Islamic $3 400 52/14/34 4,5% 7,5% 32 Civilization Park(MY), Tobu world square (JPN), Ains World (KR) Johor(MY)

Window of the world (CHN), Minimundus (AUS) $4 300 39/13/49 9,1% 8,1% 27

Samarra Mosque (Islamic Civilization Park) $3 600 22/19/60 no data no data 11

Aiins world (KR), minimundus (AUS) $5 300 3/20/78 20.3% 18.1% 16

Walt Disney World’s Epcot (US) $4 900 45/20/35 19,5% 17,3% 11

Falconcity of Wonders OAE, Minimundus AUS, Cebu Taoist Temple PH, Huaxi Village CHN, Tobu world square JPN, Aiins world KR

Aiins world (KR), Forbidden Gardens Texas (US) Bryant University Rhode $7 400 38/28/34 8,60% 8,20% 53 Island (US)

Walt Disney World’s Epcot US, Tobu world square (JPN), Minisiam (TH) Toronto (CAN)

Islamic Civilization Park, Tobu world square, Aiins world korea $11 200 25/31/45 6.2% 5,60% 57

Minimundus (AUS), La Isla Dorado, Quintana Roo, MX, Window to the world $13 800 14/23/63 13,00% 14.8% 31 (CHN), Aiins world (KR) Window of the world CHN, Wow Kremlin Palace Hotel TR, Tobu world square $15 900 10/32/58 5,5% 5,90% 26 (JPN), Minisiam TH, Aiins world KR

> strelka denis leontiev World Heritage as economic value 2011 Institutions

Today World Heritage is the main concern of national governments, non-governmental national and global trusts and of course UNESCO World Heritage Center. The convention was adopted at UNESCO General Conference during its 17th session in Paris on 16 November 1972. Although its international nature of the convention indicates that the nation State itself remains primarily responsible for the preservation of the World heritage property.

“Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identifi cation, protection, conservation, presenta- tion and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State.” UNESCO World Heritage Convention

To fund its efforts the Convention decided to found the World Heritage Fund (WHF). The Fund is fi nanced by State parties and voluntary contributions. Each state pays into the Fund maximum 1 % of total of its annual contributions to UNESCO.1 In 2010 the annual budget of the World Heritage Fund was about 7 $ million.2 A comparison of the annual income of WHF with other mayor organizations in the fi eld of preservation shows a huge gap between their fi nancial possibilities. (fi g. 1) This fi nancial gap is the result of strategic choice made by UNESCO in 1972. Six months before adoption of the Conven- tion, the United States proposed to organize an alternative World Heritage Trust. The concept was presented at the United Nations Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm in June 1972. The proposal for preservation of unique natural and cultural sites was widely supported by countries. For the fi rst time the idea of the World Heritage Trust was announced on the White House conference in 1965. Later it was used by the American President Nixon in his speech to Congress in February 1971.

“It would be fi tting by 1972 for the nations of the world to agree to the principle that there are certain areas of such unique worldwide value that they should be treated as part of the heritage of all mankind and accorded special recognition as a part of a World Heritage Trust.” Richard Nixon3

From the beginning UNESCO authorities were skeptical to this proposal:

“I did not pay much attention to the proposal itself because of the word “Trust” not translatable in French, conveying to me a sort of private philanthropic foundation & not at all an intergovernmental mechanism based on an international conventions” Michel Batisse Director of Natural Resources Research Division UNESCO4

The concept of the Trust approved at the Stockholm conference now questioned the possibility of initiation of UNESCO World Heritage Convention. However, René Maheu, UNESCO General Director, insisted that the UNESCO proposal had to be cho- sen and realized.5

World Wild Life fund National Trust UK National Trust USA UNESCO WHF 489 mln euro 440 mln euro 40 mln euro 7 mln euro

Figure 1 World preservation organizations annual revenue (Source: Annual reports 2009)

1 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO: Paris, 1972. Article 16. 2 World Heritage – Challenges for the Millenium. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2007. p.22. 3 Train, Russel. Polution, Politics, & Pandas. Enviromental memoir. Washington: Shearwater, 2003. p. 142. 4 Abdulqawi, Yusuf. Standard-setting in UNESCO. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007 p.269 note 9. 5 Burek, Cynthia, Prosser, Colin. The History of Geoconservation. Bodmin: MPG, 2008 p.280. The Trust ideologist was the American nature preservationist Russel E. Train. He was the chairman of Council on Environmen- tal Quality and the adviser of the American President Richard Nixon on environmental issues. Russel E. Train believed that such a global organization should be realized as a non-governmental organization based within the context of United Nations, but outside the context of UNESCO.

“From the beginning, I have seen the purpose of the World Heritage as being something more than simply helping to assure protection and quality management for unique natural and cultural sites around the world –as critically important as that goal is. Above and beyond that goal, I see the programme as an opportunity to convey the idea of a common heritage among na- tions and peoples everywhere! I see it as a compelling idea that can help unite people rather than divide them. I see it as an idea that can help build a sense of community among people throughout the world. I see it as an idea whose time has truly come.” Russel E. Train1

However, the concept of a non-governmental global preservation organization didn’t disappear. Russell E. Train was involved in initiation and development of most fi nancially successful global preservation fund – the World Wild Life Fund (WWF). Today the WWF has the budget 70 times bigger than UNESCO World Fund and 5 mln global members.This gives us an idea of how the World Heritage Trust could have looked like today. The long-established heritage organizations, like National Trust UK and the USA, realized the monetization of built herit- age on the national level. Today trusts are very wealthy and highly infl uential non-governmental organizations. The National Trust UK is the largest non-governmental heritage organization in the world. From the end of the 19th cen- tury, when it was founded, the Trust progressed through three main development stages: 1.Establishment of organization aims; 2.Acquisition of main heritage assets in the fi rst part of 20th century; 3.Monetization of heritage assets in the second part of 20th century; ‘With 630,000 acres, most of them in rural areas, it’s the second largest landowner in the country.” 2 These heritage assets as well as 60 million annual visitors and 3,6 million members generate income of 440 mln euro (2009) per year.3 In the end of the 19th century Robert Hunter, one of the Trust founders, formulated the social aim of the organization as: “The central idea is that of a Land Company, formed not for the promotion of thrift or the spread of political principles, and not primarily for profi t, but with a view to the protection of the public interest in open spaces in the country.”4 In comparison, in 21 century The National Trust’s policy on heritage acquisition states: “The property should be, and should be expected to remain, fi nancially self-supporting.”5 Returning back to the UNESCO World Heritage Center (WHC) I can say that the progress of non-governmental organiza- tions like The National Trust of the UK and US, WWF or Global Heritage Fund (GHF) allow them to advise UNESCO on the new strategy.

“The biggest problem is UNESCO’s failure to tap philanthropists and corporations. If you’re Coca-Cola, you don’t want to sink money into the UNESCO bureaucracy” Jeff Morgan. Executive Director, GHF Fund6

In 70’s UNESCO developed a strategy which did not imply the monetization of the world heritage. But current UNESCO initiatives give us understanding of the direction in which UNESCO will develop further:

“Therefore the main possibility for providing support and increasing the system’s capacity to assist sites lies in the growth of other public and private contributions, and in the development of new forms of fund-raising and fi nancing. Examples include: • involvement of the tourism industry in informing the public and in supporting, directly and indirectly, conservation activities; • increasing role of the Convention in the area of social and ethical investments of banks, insurances and corporations; • launching of public fund-raising and membership programmes; • creation of regional or national funds – such as the recently established African World Heritage Fund.” Francesco BANDARIN, Director, UNESCO World Heritage Centre7

1 Train, Russel. World Heritage Convention 30th Anniversary speach, Venice, Italy, 16 November 2002. 2 Who really owns Britain?. Counrtylife magazine Online: 16 November 2010. 19 June 2011

Global Park

The concept of “world heritage” is one of the aspects of continuing world globalization process. By the middle of the 20th cen- tury society formulates the idea that national heritage is not only the national endowment any longer - it refl ects the universal values which are now common for all mankind. This idea results in adoption of UNESCO convention which legally recognizes the heritage as world heritage sites. The sites included in World Heritage List are now stated to have «outstanding universal value and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria». Outstanding universal value is gained on the basis of UNESCO authority. Once the site gets the UNESCO status it be- comes famous and prestigious. By this reason tourist industry converts World Heritage site’s symbolic value into economic value. The heritage site acquires the features of global brand. Thus, the very basis which acknowledges the universal value of the site is being transformed. First its universal value is acknowledges by UNESCO symbolic value, but after monetization it reaffi rms itself with the economic value. UNESCO list now has 20% of the heritage sites which universal value confi rms by the market economy. This World Herit- age Sites are transformed into World Heritage Hubs. World Heritage Hub (WHH) is a UNESCO World Heritage Site which has intense international tourist fl ow more than 1 million visitors per year and has at least one replica in the world. Contemporary media, mass tourism and infrastructure connected such heritage sites into unifi ed global net – Global Park.

Global Park is a global cumulative brand which represents World Heritage in the market economy.

If most of UNESCO World Heritage list represents national cultures, the Global Park formulates new global supranational image of cultural identity and becomes a representation of ongoing globalization process. Unlike UNESCO Global Park uses market mechanisms to confi rm the universal value of heritage. In order to be included into Global Park the site should comply with the transformed UNESCO criteria. The criteria key words as Signifi cant, Outstanding and Exceptional are replaced with Attractive, Spectacular and Extraordinary. Universal value of the World Heritage Site is put in doubt by market economy if site does not correspond with the Global Park criteria.

«Most of the cultural and natural heritage sites on the list are nowhere as famous or impressive as the Taj, Great Wall or Petra in Jordan; in fact, many are little-known sites. If they can be on the list, surely Singapore has a shot».1

Continuing competition between scientifi c and market approaches for the right to approve the universal value of heritage sites is the key facrctor for the directions of development of heritage institutions. According to UMWTO prognosis by the year of 2020 there will be a double growth of international tourists – up to 1,5 billion people. Most of tourism growth will concentrate on World Heritage Hubs as well as the sites which are to be included into the Global Park, like Mount Fuji which is still in the UNESCO Tentative list. Continuation of tendency for the growth of tourist fl ows will lead to the fact that the right to approve the universal value of heritage sites will remain on the site of the market economy. In this perspective the new UNESCO regulations which control the amount of new inscriptions to World Heritage list up to 45 sites per year will be understood as tool to regulate the access to the Global Park.

Special thanx to: Sergey Sitar, Alexey Novikov, Stephan Peterman, Janna Bystrykh, Maria Kolmakova

Bibliography Ruskin, John. A Joy Forever” and Its Price in the Market, or The Political Economy of Art. London: Ballantyne, 1904. Peacock, Alan and Rizzo, Ilde. The Heritage Game Economics, Policy, and Practice. New York: Oxford, 2008. Groys, Boris. The Total Art of Stalinism. Princeton Univ. Press 1992. Timothy, Dallen and Nyaupane, Gyan. Cultural Heritage and Tourism in the Developing World. New York: Routledge, 2009 Mason, Randall. The Once and Future New York. Historic Preservation and the Modern City. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2009. Train, Russel. Polution, Politics, & Pandas. Enviromental memoir. Washington: Shearwater, 2003. Burek, Cynthia, Prosser, Colin The History of Geoconservation. Bodmin: MPG, 2008. Abdulqawi, Yusuf. Standard-setting in UNESCO. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007.

1 Dawn Wei, Tan. World Heritage site in S’pore?, The Straits Times. Feb 20, 2009 19 June 2011. < http://www.asiaone.com/Travel/News/Story/A1Story20090220-123355.html ry20090220-123355.html Travel/News/Story/A1Sto- http://www.asiaone.com/

Cologne Cathedral Paris, Banks of the Seine Global Park Heritage Hub is a UNESCO World Heritage Site which is Palace and Park of Versailles monetized by mass culture, has intense tourist ow not less Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay than 1 million visitors per year and has at least one replica Pont du Gard World Heritage Hub distribution in the world. Historic Centre of Prague Acropolis, Athens Contemporary media, mass tourism and infrastructure Historic Areas of Istanbul connected such heritage sites into unied global net - Historic Centre of Vienna Global Park. Historic Centre of Rome Venice and its Lagoon Vatican City Global Park formulates new global supernational image of Historic Centre of Florence cultural identity and becomes a global cumulative brand Piazza del Duomo, Pisa which represents World Heritage in the market economy. Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzn, Granada Global park uses market mechanisms to conrm the Works of Antoni Gaudi universal value of heritage. Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites Tower of London Total entrance fee: 312,2 € Annual tourists ow: 65 mln The Great Wall Imperial Palaces of the Ming and Qing Dynasties Saint Petersburg Mount Huangshan Entrance fee: 41 € Temple of Heaven: an Imperial Sacricial Altar in Beijing Annual tourists ow: 2,5 mln Longmen Grottoes Kremlin Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties Entrance fee: 12 € Entrance fee: 12 € (ferry) Annual tourists ow: 2 mln Total entrance fee: 65€ Annual tourists ow: 3,8 mln Annual tourists ow: 37 mln

Grand Canyon National Park Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range Entrance fee: 17,5 € Memphis and its Necropolis the Pyramid Fields Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara Annual tourists ow: 4,4 mln from Giza to Dahshur Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities) Entrance fee: 8 € (ferry) Itsukushima Shinto shrine Annual tourists ow: 5 mln Total entrance fee: 24,7€ Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-Itza Taj Mahal Nubian Monuments from to Philae Annual tourists ow: 9 mln. Entrance fee: 5 € Entrance fee: 10 € Entrance fee: 34 € Annual tourists ow: 2,6 mln Annual tourists ow: 2,4 mln Annual tourists ow: 2 mln Angkor Entrance fee: 14 € Annual tourists ow: 2,5 mln Borobudur Temple Compounds Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-Itza Brasilia Entrance fee: 14 € Entrance fee: 44 € Annual tourists ow: 2,5 mln Annual tourists ow: 1,4 mln

Sydney Opera House Entrance fee: 7€ Annual tourists ow: 7 mln.

World Heritage Hub

Web resources: Data used in the poster was taken from: World Heritage Convention site Lonely planet guides Unesco statisctic on World Heritage Properties National statisctic on World Heritage Properties > strelka denis leontiev World Heritage as economic value 2011 “Copy-Paste” heritage India Angry over fake Taj Mahal World Heritage copies global distribution A spokesman at the Indian High Commission in Dhaka fumed: "You can't just go and copy historical monuments.” Sky News 12:49 pm UK, Friday December 12, 2008

Minmundus (AU) Aiins World (KR) Trump Taj Mahal (US) Tripoli Shrine Temple (US) Tobu World Square (JP) Window of the World (CHN) Falconcity of Wonders (OAE) Dhaka (BGD) 25

Islamic Civilization Park (MY) 13 Tropical Village (MY) 11 9 5 3 2 Number of World Heritage copies Tower of London Acropolis, Athens Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites 9 Westminster Palace Cologne Cathedral Alhambra, Generalife and Albayzn Venice and its Lagoon Works of Antoni Gaudi The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes

Historic Centre of Rome 11 Palace and Park of Versailles 13 Paris, Statue of Liberty Banks of the Seine Angkor Piazza del Duomo, Pisa 11 4 Sydney Opera House Meidan Emam, Esfahan 6 Taj- Imperial Palaces of the Ming and 25 Borobudur Temple Compounds Mahal Qing Dynasties in Beijing Palace and Park of Fontainebleau Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto 11 6 The Great Wall 5 Brasilia Historic Centre of Vienna Himeji-jo 4 Chichen-Itza >50 copies Kremlin and Red Square, Moscow Temple of Heaven: Machu Pichu Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg an Imperial Sacricial Altar in Beijing Latin America Europe and Nort America Asia and Pacic

Nubian Monuments from Abu Simbel to Philae 5 Petra 5 Memphis and its Necropolis the Pyramid Fields from Giza to Dahshur Notice Web resources Arab states Data used in the poster was taken from: The regions presented here are defined by heritage Theme park sites UNESCO for its activities, and do not necessarily reflect the actual geographical location of countries. Wikipedia flickr photobank > strelka denis leontiev World Heritage as economic value 2011 World of (agri)culture Global Heritage in developing countries with 30% of population occupied in agriculture

In agricultural countries like Cambo- dia more than 15% of population has jobs related to tourism. Tourism is the reason for such countries Morocco to apply to UNESCO Tentative list with 17,3% new sites. 8 11 T World Heritage becomes a tool to 45% replace the agricultural economy with the service economy. Cape Verde 39,5% This explains why today more then 60 % 1 of Heritage Sites in the Tentative list Combodia belong to (agri)cultural world. 5 T 17,1% 2 9 T 57 % Vanuatu 37,7% 1 38 mln 65 mln 5 T 65%

258 sites 940 sites

153 million jobs total contribution* of tourism to employment in (agri)cultural countries Unesco World Heritage List Unesco Tentative List 911 sites total 1524 sites total China India Indonesia Burkina Faso Cameroon Rep. African Central Islands Solomon New Guinea Papua Mozambique Ghana Pakistan Romania Haiti Sri Lanka Turkey Botswana Haiti Laos Madagaskar Senegal Tazania Egypt Philipines South Africa Honduras Morocco Rep. Dominican Congo Gabon Niger Nigeria Sudan Togo Bolivia Bangladesh Ethiopia Kenya Malawi Mali Nepal Uganda Yemen Zimbabwe Armenia Azerbajan Guatemala Kyrgistan Mongolia Viet Nam Cape Verde Vanuatu Morocco Albania

Web resources % of total contribution of Travel & Tourism to employment, including jobs indirectly supported by the industry Data used in the poster was taken from: World Heritage Convention site Number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in (agri)cultural country World travel and tourism council CIA factbook T Number of Sites on the UNESCO Tentative list Wikipedia % of population occupied in agriculture > strelka denis leontiev World Heritage as economic value 2011