This week, I'd like to give a follow-up to the recent 9 WHS Commandments blogpost.

Will do it in 3 steps:
1. Determine the 'final' list of Commandments, considering the replies on the blog post and other things we can think of.
2. Determine the criteria for a WHS to get our full recommendation (e.g.: full compliance or a waiver for one? a golden and a silver badge?)
3. Suggest sites we think cover the Commandments so well that they earned their badge.

Hope I can count on your help and ideas!

STEP 1: Determine the 'final' list of Commandments

The original 9:

1. You show your OUV!
You do not keep it to yourself (looking at you, people of Stoclet!). You may restrict visitor numbers when overcrowding becomes a concern, but access should be allowed via a mechanism that is open to everyone.
2. Thou shalt not close up shop right after becoming a WHS
Celebrate your WH status. Be prepared for a surge in visitors. Offer them free entrance or another freebie in the first weeks to celebrate with you. Don't be like the Margravial Opera House which stayed open for only 3 months and then closed for 6 years! Or like Saudi Arabia's Turaif Quarter which continued renovations until 13 years after the inscription it finally opened.
3. You are clear about your core zone
You deliver a good quality, digital map to the WHC Bureau desks – how hard can that be in 2023? Also, on site, you make clear which areas of your property are protected as part of the WHS.
4. You shall have a proper UNESCO plaque
This is already a requirement in the guidelines from UNESCO. Display it proudly in a freely accessible area. Let a local artist make an interesting design. The plaque should also state in which year you reached WH status and for what reason, to educate visitors without prior knowledge about WHS.
5. Thou shalt not practice foreigner pricing
You are a WORLD heritage, it is protected for and by the GLOBAL community. So you cannot make one global citizen pay more than another. Guilty: at least 107 of the current WHS!
6. You shall create and maintain an official website
On the website, you show your opening hours, entrance fees, and any special visiting conditions if applicable.
7. Thou shalt no lie about being a WHS when thou are not one (yet)
Speaks for itself. It confuses mainstream media, leading to a lot of unnecessary chatter.
8. If you're part of a serial site, you should make that clear
State where and what the other locations are, and what your site contributes to the overall picture. Share logos. Even consider a shared admission ticket!
9. You allow photography without restriction or additional fees

Summary of the comments:

Missing:
10: Spent some money on proper paper tickets. (Nan)
No WTF thermo prints. No generic Indian archeology tickets. A pretty ticket, preferably DIN A6 or smaller, carton board, clearly stating the location and time of visit.
11: "Thou shall provide tour translations" (Solivagant)
Those sites only allowing visit via a tour - how difficult is it in these days of Google Translate? They must surely have an initial standard script for training and "quality" purposes. Auto translate it into a range of languages - good enough for this purpose, print out and plasticise the result. No need for hi tech "Q code" etc solutions. No more waiting for the only tour in language "X" of the day or having to follow around without any/much understanding.
12: There should be no "seasonal closure" at all, unless there is a REALLY cogent motivation for that. (Astraftis)
(maybe combine it with the too-limited opening hours, 12-16 only on Thu, Fri, Sat or such; it may also capture the essence of "all is closed on a Monday")
13: Do not force visitors into packages or tours, if it's not really necessary (Astraftis, by whatsapp)

So we have a longlist of 13. From the original 9, for these 4 amendments have been suggested:

#2: not close right after becoming a WHS: phrase it more broadly: With inscription all maintenance/accessibility/renovation issues are resolved. I think inscription should not happen if there is work pending (Nan) -> agree
#5: foreigner pricing: debated, "should be accessible for the locals, but money from foreigners is needed for upkeep.", "discriminatory pricing should be limited to poor vs rich countries and not excessive." (Frederic, Nan, Jay T) -> discuss a bit further to be able to rephrase
#8: serial sites: would be solved by a good map (#3) and a decent official website (#6) already -> propose to delete
#9: photography: "I think my only exception would be in a tiny set of delicate sites where the use of flash could genuinely damage the OUV of light sensitive decoration (cave art mostly), or cause some form of danger (e.g. I remember all battery powered objects being banned from the underground tours at Blaenavon)" (meltwaterfalls), Photography for non-commercial use should be permitted. (Nan), Sometimes I think that limitations on photography can just create a better experience for everybody, disincentivating some obnoxious behaviours like queus for selfies etc. (Astraftis) -> discuss a bit further to be able to rephrase

I am quite adamant to keep this one, as I have seen it occurring too often in countries with a large middle class where people easily spend the same amount of money on McDonald's meals for the whole family. Also, the 'trickling down of taxes' argument I find not applicable, as this is also the case in developed countries though they do not practice reverse foreigner pricing.

We have a connection already showing which WHS practice foreigner pricing. It seems to be mostly determined on a country level. India, Costa Rica and Brazil stand out.

So what counts as a 'poor' country? This: https://unctad.org/topic/least-developed-countries/list ? Or a certain lower part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita?
And what is 'excessive': over 100% mark-up?

Some of these are really quite "detailed". I wonder whether it might not be better to amalgamate several similar commandments under a higher level" on the model of "not coveting thy neighbour's A, B, C ........ etc etc".

So specify the commandment at a higher level with details being mentioned within where necessary or worthwhile as examples ...
1. Thou shalt make thyself available for viewing under reasonable conditions
2. Thou shalt provide an accessible, truthful and up to date source of information about yourself
3. Thou shalt provide a worthwhile and memorable visiting experience without unnecessary restrictions or discrimination

I don't know how "hung up" we should be about having 10 Commandments?? Obviously if some of the above get too long they could be split so as to result in just 10

I'm not too exercised about foreigner pricing. Yes, it's annoying as a traveler but we are in a very privileged position to be able to globetrot in the first place. If it enables access by nationals of the host nation - who may well have not have opportunities to see any other WHSs - I'm fine with it.

Likewise, photography. Many WHSs are considered sacred and I am comfortable respecting other peoples' religious sensitivities. Now, an extra charge for personal photography? That's just treating it as a cash cow.

In regard to Solivagant's comment on sticking with ten, I like the idea of narrowing to Ten Commandments because it is such a widely familiar reference.

I'm actually fine with keeping Number 8 distinct, rather than eliminating it because of Numbers 3 and 6. I think putting the onus on serial and transnational sites to clearly articulate what their components are and why they are included should be a part of their presentation at individual component sites, whether through brochures, books, or billboards. I'd also give higher marks to serial/transnational sites that have their own websites with links to individual components.

In regard to pricing, since it may be a bit tricky to agree on what is proper pricing, could we just state something like "Thou shalt not charge exorbitant fees for foreigners", without defining exorbitant?

I'm in agreement with the comments about photography restrictions being appropriate for light-sensitive locations and for religious or ceremonial sensitivities. Would phrasing like "Thou shalt not unduly limit or charge fees for personal photography" work for a basic rule?

For a tenth commandment, I like Solivagant's tour translation suggestion because it is extremely practical for on-site experience. UNESCO's website offers options for English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, and Chinese. Would those be appropriate languages to recommend for a tour translation commandment: "Thou shalt provide onsite tours or translated tour information in English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, and Chinese"?

I'm inclined to agree with Els on the foreigner pricing issue. The distinction between rich and poor countries is rapidly blurring with the rapid growth of middle class in formerly "poor" countries. The truly poor won't pay anything to visit their own whs unless it is religious I guess anyway. I think fees for accessibility (eg to national parks) ends up being the biggest driver of cost for us at the end of the day and a reduction in entry doesn't really help the local much. Most countries practicing dual pricing treat it as a cash cow and we should only give an exemption to the rule if there is a transparent and accountable system showing the money actually going directly back into the site.

In response to the concern brought forward by Ian regarding the inclusion of cities: for the time being I would leave them out of the equation, as well as (cultural) landscapes that have no formal point of entry.

We can think of an alternative for them of course.

It occurs to me that we haven't previously identified and differentiated between WHS which are primarily in

a. the public domain - i.e "open to all" in so far as benefitting from the site's OUV is concerned. Such sites may also contain buildings, areas..... even enormous tracts of land, which require "entry" past a barrier of some sort which is either fully closed to "ordinary folk" or only passable by paying an entry fee. However, such areas, whilst many might consider going "inside" them to be an "important" element of visiting the site, doing so would not be considered "essential" by the "reasonable WHS collector", Cities are the most obvious WHS in this category - some might say that not to (pay to) go up the Eiffel Tower, into the Louvre etc is "not to see" the Paris, Banks of Seine WHS but, that, IMO, would be a very hard stance! On the other hand, visiting the "free to enter" and enormous Versailles gardens would not surely be adequate to benefit from that WHS's OUV so, IMO, Versailles would not be in this category of WHS, NB - in some countries National Parks are "Public domain" (E.g Bulgaria with Pirin) whilst in others. (E.g USA), they are not

b. a controlled Domain - ie. requiring the visitor to pass some barrier in order to benefit from the site's OUV. That barrier may require a payment or always be "closed" to ordinary folk. There may be some "inscribed" areas outside this/these "controlled area(s)" but visiting them alone would not be considered adequate to benefit from the OUV. For example I think of the Westminster WHS - a part of St Margaret's St is within the core boundary, but surely this is still a "controlled domain" WHS because of the H of P and Westminster Abbey (and even St Margaret's Church)??

There will be some "hard cases".
I think of e.g Surtsey. The WHS boundary includes a very large maritime area which is "public domain", but the island itself is "Controlled domain". the ratio is 3230 ha to 141 ha. Particularly since the island is closed I think most people would regard a visit to the larger maritime area to be ok for a "visit" even though the OUV I guess resides on the Island itself - which makes Surtsey a "public domain" WHS IMO?

I would suggest "Public" and "Controlled domain" WHS should be marked on different "visiting" requirements - as has already been identified above for cities, many of the current 10 are not really relevant - but there may be others?

I wonder also whether the "Free to enter" Connection should only apply to relevant "Controlled domain" sites? Too many of the WHS which have been given this Connection are in the public domain - e.g Beemster Polder.

There are also "hard cases" regarding "Free" and "Pay to enter" controlled domain sites. Westminster for instance - the Houses of Parliament and St Margaret's Church can be visited for free but I don't think that many would regard that as justifying it as a "free to enter" site given the cost of visiting Westminster Abbey!!!

No doubt we will come across more "hard cases" as we try to divide WHS as between public and controlled - but the basic principles seem clear enough? I think of Rapa Nui. The fact that visitors have to pay to stay on the island makes it Controlled (and "Pay to enter") IMO

Yep actually I think this is the heart of what I was getting to with the urban WHS, realising that there were others that it would apply too as well. I think that Public/ Controlled Domain works well to my mind, (if anyone else agrees that would be usuful to know it isn't just our ritish perspective on property ownership and access coming to the fore :))


A side note on this, access to the free aspects has been rather restricted in the last few years. Access to Westminster Hall is becoming much more limited, and the the hoops to jump through more tiresome.
Even St Margaret's, whilst still free, now requires visitors to queue up as if they were accessing Westminster Abbey, go through security, and only at the last minute can they divert to go into the church.

A proposal.....
1. All WHS are assigned an overall "Access Conditions" attribute by us which is used to generate the appropriate icon
2. These are the possible values
a. Public
b. Controlled - Free to enter
c. Controlled - Pay to enter
d. Controlled - No entry
3. We use a "Connection" to give each site an overall category based on our assessment of what is necessary to achieve a general appreciation of the site's OUV. As there is an element of "judgement" and complexity involved, the Connection text can be used to expand as worthwhile on this. So Public Domain sites could have text about any significant "Pay to enter" elements or restrictions about any free to enter ones. A site like Surtsey might be categorised as "Controlled - no entry" (which it basically is!) but the text could show that the boundaries include a large maritime element from which the closed area is visible.
4. "Controlled - Pay to enter" would include situations as in e.g Africa where entry is controlled by local custom e.g only being "allowed" by taking and paying for a guide. etc etc etc
5. I wonder if the guided/not guided could also be covered under the "Access Conditions" category ...or is that mixing too many aspects within a single attribute?

And all worthwhile sites nowadays can only be visited by a guided tour anyway.

I'd rather keep that separate, it varies a lot also over time.