We haven't discussed this matter since Dec 2014.....The latest Flow Country evaluation seems to justify a review of the current situation...and the past 10 years!
I was interested (and surprised) to note that The "Flow Country" nomination has escaped the general "requirement" to have a Buffer Zone (BZ)! The IUCN evaluation states - "
The nomination does not include a buffer zone. The position of the Scottish Government is that a World Heritage natural site buffer zone is not a statutory designation and would not provide any specific legal protection. The use of an additional layer of environmental designation unfamiliar to the public (buffer zone) is considered adding a level of confusion to the local population in respect of their interaction with the nominated property. Therefore, the Scottish Government discourages the use of buffer zones around natural World Heritage properties..... The buffer function is therefore provided within legal and planning frameworks without delimiting a World Heritage buffer area." A reasonable argument or a fine example of "UK Exceptionalism"?....."Our laws are so superior that we don't need to adopt confusing concepts from beyond as followed by everyone else......"?
UK has long battled with UNESCO/ICOMOS/IUCN on the matter of BZs. See
this UNESCO document from 2011 covering discussions regarding Westminster and the Tower of London . which adopts a similar argument that buffer zones are not "as good" as the way "we" do things - "
The mission spent some considerable amount of time discussing and understanding the absence of buffer zones for both the Tower and Westminster World Heritage Sites.....Overall, it was explained, the term "buffer zone" carries a negative connotation in the UK. It's perceived as being overly restrictive....". Adding BZs to the Tower and Westminster were of course raised during a post inscription Mission, but it appears that UK is still being successful in avoiding identifying BZs for at least some of its new Nominations. Is it "unique" in achieving this? We have a Connection for "No Buffer Zone" with just 16 entries – is it really that uncommon?
The Operational Guidelines (OGs) have "suggested" the need for BZs since the 1980 version Para 12 -"
Whenever necessary for the proper conservation of a cultural or natural property nominated, an adequate "buffer zone" around a property should be foreseen and should be afforded the necessary protection. A buffer zone can be defined as an area surrounding the property which has an essential influence on the physical state of the property and/ or on the way in which the property is perceived". The same words have largely survived in the OGs through to the current 2023 version in Para 103 of that document, with the minor, but probably not significant, change from "Whenever" to "Wherever" necessary. The OG creates (at least!) 2 problems – What is "
necessary" and how should the "
area" be defined?.
The UNESCO site page for each WHS has provision to show both "
Property" and "
Buffer Zone" areas but is not always accurate. In the following analysis I have tried to refer to the detail of the AB evaluations (and even Nomination files) in those cases where the UNESCO page gives no BZ data. This has indeed often identified that there is a BZ even if not shown "up front". I have gone back as far as 2014 to identify how common inscriptions with "no BZ" have been "recently" -
2014 - 1 out of 26.
Poverty Point (US). ICOMOS wasn't happy and recommended Deferral for various boundary/buffer related reasons but was overruled with Inscription and the issue wasn't sorted
2015 - 1 out of 24. Forth Bridge (UK). Only contains a "
de facto" BZ...ICOMOS considers the legal protection adequate
2016 - 0 out of 212017 - 2 out of 21Lake District (UK) - "
A BZ is not proposed......ICOMOS considers that the reasons given by the SP ....are satisfactory"Khomani (SA) - No BZ proposed. ICOMOS not happy with a number of boundary related issues and recommended Deferral for all to be reconsidered. Overruled with inscription and the matter wasn't sorted.
2018 – 2 out of 19Aasivissuit (DK) - ICOMOS considers that the lack of a BZ is "unlikely to be an issue in the long term"
Barberton (SA) - No BZ proposed. IUCN wanted strengthened BZ and proposed Refer. Overruled by inscription and the issue not sorted
2019 – 3 out of 29Budj Bim (OZ) - ICOMOS "the property is not surrounded by a delineated BZ". Australia puts forward a concept of an "unlimited BZ" and refers to the "
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999 which provides sufficient protection and that therefore no buffer zone is required". ICOMOS is concerned ("
ICOMOS considers that this system can be understood as an unlimited buffer zone, provided that monitoring mechanisms are well elaborated and consistently applied") – but leaves it there!.
French Austral (FR) - IUCN accepts that "The addition of reserve control over the entire Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) surrounding the reserve established in 2017 provides an effective buffer zone."
Vatnajokull (IS) - No buffer zone proposed and IUCN accepts that "
Given the vast size of the nominated property, the particular resilient nature of the OUV, and the existing protection in the nominated property's surroundings through the Nature Conservation Act, the Public Land Act and the Master Plan for Nature Protection and Energy Utilisation, IUCN agrees that the designation of a buffer zone is not essential for this property, provided these wider measures continue to be effective."
2021 - 3 out of 34Slate Landscape of Wales (UK) - "
The SP has not proposed a BZ"....The ICOMOS evaluation considers the OG background to all this in length... and is not at all happy ("However, ICOMOS notes the vulnerability of the setting due to the configuration of the serial components and the absence of a formal buffer zone.") but lets it go!
Spa Towns of Europe – ICOMOS notes "
All component parts include buffer zones (some quite extensive) with the exception of the City of Bath. However, this component is surrounded by a designated Green Belt which seeks to protect the open landscape around the City while the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty abuts the City to the north, east and south" ... so that is ok then!!! But ICOMOS does want improvements/extensions to the BZs of Vichy and Karlovy Vary - they don't "do things as well" in France or Czechia!
KKFC (TH) – IUCN notes "The original and revised nomination of 2014 and 2016 respectively also included a buffer zone of 242,778 ha." which has been removed ..... is not happy... wants a reconsideration of this among other aspects with a Deferral....but is overruled and the issue passes by!
2023 – 2 out of 45Rachid Karami Fairground (LE) - "
no buffer zone according to the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention has been proposed. ICOMOS observes that consideration should be given to defining a buffer zone encircling the nominated oval-shaped area"..... goes along with the overall "Emergency inscription" but proposes that, subsequently "
with the assistance of the joint ICOMOS/WHC reactive monitoring mission, the establishment of a buffer zone"
Gedeo (ET) - "
there is no buffer zone as it is stated that there is no difference between the landscape within the property boundaries and the landscape beyond, as both are part of the Gedeo Zone". Although recommending inscription ICOMOS also stated that "
the addition of a buffer zone to protect the immediate setting needs to be considered."
Thus, relatively few sites since 2014 have gained inscription without identifying a separate BZ area with its own boundaries. But what is the overall situation taking into account earlier inscriptions? Has there been much of a "catch up" on them? I have looked at a small number of countries as follows for their "
No BZ" status -
Spain - 11 out of 50 (Cordoba (84), El Escurial (84), Gaudi (87), Avila (85), Donana (94), Lonja (96), Las Med (97), Pyr (97), Coa (98), Atapuerca (00), Elche (00). Nb. Heritage of Mercury (2012) DOES have a BZ accepted by ICOMOS even though not shown in UNESCO summary
France - 9 out of 52 (Arles (81), Fontainbleau (81), G of Porto (83), Reims Cath etc (91), Paris Seine (91), Avignon (95), Pyr-Mt Perdu (97) , Rts St de Comp (98), Austral lands 23). Nb – although not shown in the UNESCO summary the French Belfries do each have a "zone tampon" shown in the Nom file.
Austria - 0 out of 12Ethiopia - 9 out of 11. Most are 2006 or earlier, Konso (11) ICOMOS wanted a "Deferral" for buffer zones etc but was overruled and the issue wasn't sorted. Gedeo is described above under 2023.
Rep of Korea - 5 out of 16. All of which were inscribed up to 1997.
UK - 22 out of 33. It is thus easier to identify the 11 which do – Studley (86), Greenwich (97), Orkney (99), Derwent Valley (01), New Lanark (01), Saltaire (01), Kew (03), Gough (ext 04) Pontcycyllte (09), Gorham (16) and Jodrell (19). N.b - in the case of Gough its Marine area is considered a BZ by UNESCO even though it is stated elsewhere "
Buffer zone: no buffer zone has been defined but none needed" and Liverpool (04) DID have a buffer zone! Furthermore - In the 2014-23 period it managed to gain inscription without BZ for Forth Bridge, Lake District, Slate Landscape, and the Bath element of Spa towns i.e ALL its inscriptions across the period other than Gorham's Cave in Gibraltar! And now is about to achieve the same with Flow Country – though the Gracehill element of Moravian Churches in N Ireland DOES have a BZ!!!