https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/
Quite a few are on my list, to be fair.
Just been down a rabbit hole after clicking that link there!
I clicked on that link assuming that it might provide some data on how many people are booking holidays, or visiting UNESCO sites, on the merit of their holiday destination being a UNESCO site. Can't say i found what I was after.
I then clicked the 'about us' link, which reads what UNESCO hope to achieve. Amongst other objectives, this includes:
'Heritage Convention and to ensure the protection of their natural and cultural heritage;
Encourage States Parties to establish management plans and set up reporting systems on the state of conservation of their World Heritage sites;
Help States Parties safeguard World Heritage properties by providing technical assistance and professional training;
Provide emergency assistance for World Heritage sites in immediate danger;
Support States Parties' public awareness-building activities for World Heritage conservation;
Encourage participation of the local population in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage;"
As I understand that, UNESCO don't provide much themselves: there's no funding provided, I don't think, and couldn't find any info on Google about it. So UNESCO serve to, mostly, provide the world heritage status itself, act as an overseer to who does and doesn't get said status, and then try to encourage states to preserve and maintain the site in question, so that the status is maintained. And if it's not maintained, they will provide 'emergency assistance'. Although it's not stipulated as to whether this assistance is financial in nature or not.
As I understand it, then, Liverpool got its status not too long ago, but presumably it would've come with some guidance and parameters from UNESCO..."make sure the local government maintains and upkeeps the sites", etc....which hasn't really happened. Peel have done their own thing, mostly, and why wouldn't they as a business first and foremost. Presumably, this endangered the status further.
The council, peel, whoever, it would seem, have done nothing to 'maintain or preserve' Bramley Moore specifically. If anything, Everton should be applauded for their own preservation efforts, but in the grand scheme of things, I'm assuming these things from all this reading:
- Liverpool's UNESCO status was at risk before Everton made Bramley Moore enquiries
- Peel's own business developments and Peel's / the council's lack of 'maintaining' or 'preserving' dock sites like Bramley Moore will have impacted on this downgrading further
- Peel's expansions, I assume, will have had a significantly more positive financial impact on Liverpool's trade and employment levels than UNESCO's seal of approval.So even though I could be wrong (and I could be, to be fair, need to read more on it) but it's safe to assume that Everton - a business, like Peel, but with arguably a more positive track record on community development and treatment of local points of historical interest (see: treatment of Bill Shankly post retirement, arf arf arf) would be a lot more positive to the city...and to the actual maintenance and preservation of Bramley Moore itself...than holding onto what seems like a status that was already a bit thin on the ground as it was.
Went on a bit there sorry, baby's asleep isn't he. Feel free to shoot me down here, pro-unesco dudes, need to read more on it later I think.
Tldr: Big Joe's not always wrong
Topic: [News]Bramley Moore Dock update (Read 678765 times)
