World Heritage Convention and U.S. National Parks
Released: 2001-04-24T00:00:00

Summary:
On March 6, 2001, Congressman Don Young introduced H.R. 883 , the AmericanLand Sovereignty Act. H.R. 883 requires congressional approval to add any lands owned by the United States to the World HeritageList, a UNESCO-administered listestablished by the 1972 World Heritage Convention. Two years ago, on May 20, 1999, the House passed (by voicevote) an identical bill also numbered H.R. 883 , but the legislation did not pass in the Senate. Sponsors of that bill expressed concern that addinga U.S. site to the U.N. list, which iscurrently done under executive authority, might not protect the rights of private property owners or the states. TheClinton Administration and opponents of thebill argued that the designation has no effect on property rights and does not provide the United Nations with anylegal authority over U.S. territory. In relatedlegislation, P.L. 106-429 , in which H.R. 5526 , the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and RelatedPrograms appropriations act for 2001 wasreferenced, contained language prohibiting funding from this bill for the United Nations World Heritage Fund. TheFY2000 contribution to the Fund was$450,000. The World Heritage Fund provides technical assistance to countries requesting help in protecting WorldHeritage sites. This paper describes theoperation of the UNESCO Convention and will be updated periodically. This legislation would also affect U.S.participation in the UNESCO Man and theBiosphere Program, which includes some of the same sites. For information on that program, see CRS Report RS20220(pdf) , Biosphere Reserves and the U.S. MABProgram.

paragraphs: 96-395 -- World Heritage Convention and U.S. National Parks
Updated April 24, 2001
Summary
On March 6, 2001, Congressman Don Young introduced H.R. 883 , the AmericanLand Sovereignty Act. H.R. 883 requires congressional approval to add any lands owned by the United States to the World HeritageList, a UNESCO-administered listestablished by the 1972 World Heritage Convention. Two years ago, on May 20, 1999, the House passed (by voicevote) an identical bill also numbered H.R. 883 , but the legislation did not pass in the Senate. Sponsors of that bill expressed concern that addinga U.S. site to the U.N. list, which iscurrently done under executive authority, might not protect the rights of private property owners or the states. TheClinton Administration and opponents of thebill argued that the designation has no effect on property rights and does not provide the United Nations with anylegal authority over U.S. territory. In relatedlegislation, P.L. 106-429 , in which H.R. 5526 , the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and RelatedPrograms appropriations act for 2001 wasreferenced, contained language prohibiting funding from this bill for the United Nations World Heritage Fund. TheFY2000 contribution to the Fund was$450,000. The World Heritage Fund provides technical assistance to countries requesting help in protecting WorldHeritage sites. This paper describes theoperation of the UNESCO Convention and will be updated periodically. This legislation would also affect U.S.participation in the UNESCO Man and theBiosphere Program, which includes some of the same sites. For information on that program, see CRS Report RS20220(pdf) , Biosphere Reserves and the U.S. MABProgram. 
There are currently 690 natural and cultural sites in 122 countries listed on the World Heritage List established underthe World Heritage Convention. TwentyU.S. sites are listed, including Yellowstone and Grand Canyon National Parks, Independence Hall, and the Statueof Liberty. The World Heritage in Danger listcurrently has 30 sites in 24 countries, including Yellowstone National Park and Everglades National Park. Yellowstone National Park was listed on the sites indanger list in 1995 and the Everglades was listed in 1993. The 1980 National Historic Preservation Act establishesthe Interior Department as the administratorand coordinator of U.S. activities under the Convention. H.R. 883 , the American Land Sovereignty Act,would place conditions on Interior'sauthority to nominate new sites and require specific congressional authorization for new nominations. 
About the Convention
The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, popularly known as the World Heritage Convention, was adopted by theGeneral Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1972. The United States initiated and led thedevelopment of the treaty and was the first nation to ratify it in 1973. Currently, 162 nations are parties to theConvention. The Convention's purpose is toidentify and list worldwide natural and cultural sites and monuments considered to be of such exceptional interestand such universal value that their protection isthe responsibility of all mankind. Each country adopting the Convention pledges to protect listed sites andmonuments within its borders and refrain fromactivities which harm World Heritage sites in other countries. The Convention states in Article 4 that each partyto it "recognizes that the duty of ensuring theidentification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural andnatural heritage .... situated on its territory, belongsprimarily to that state." (1) The internationalcommunity agrees to help protect them through the World Heritage Committee and Fund.
World Heritage Committee and Fund
The World Heritage Committee, composed of 21 specialists from member nations elected for 6-year terms, administers the Convention. (The United States wasmostly recently a member of the Committee for a term ending October 1999). The Committee has two principaltasks. First, it recognizes the sites nominated bymember states to be included on the World Heritage List, based on the criteria established by the Committee. Decisions on additions to the List are generallymade by consensus. UNESCO provides administrative assistance to the Committee but has no role in its decisions.The Committee monitors the sites and when asite is seriously endangered, it may be put on a List of World Heritage in Danger after consultation with the countryin which the site is located. In 1992, theCommittee adopted a plan to improve its operations, including an increased focus on monitoring conditions atexisting sites rather than adding new sites to theList.
The Committee also administers the World Heritage Fund, which provides technical and financial aid to countries requesting assistance. Assistance can includesuch support as expert studies, training, and equipment for protection. World Heritage Fund technical assistancemust be requested by a member country in anagreement with the Committee, which sets conditions for the assistance. The World Heritage Fund receives incomefrom several sources. Member states pay duesequal to 1% of their UNESCO contribution. The United States is not a member of UNESCO and therefore doesnot contribute as a member. The Fund alsoreceives voluntary contributions from governments, donations from institutions, individuals, and from national orinternational promotional activities. The UnitedStates contributed $450,000 voluntarily to this program in FY2000, an amount appropriated in the ForeignOperations Appropriation. A similar contribution wasrequested for FY2001. This contribution was prohibited by P.L. 106-429 . Virtually no other U.S. money wascontributed to this program.
U.S. Participation
The National Park Service is the primary U.S. contact for World Heritage sites in the United States. The National Historic Preservation Act Amendment of 1980( P.L. 96-515 ) charges the Department of Interior with coordinating and directing U.S. activities under theConvention, in cooperation with the Departments ofState, Commerce, and Agriculture, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The National Park Service administers all theU.S. sites with funds appropriated by Congress, except for several that are owned by states, a foundation, and anIndian tribe.
Legislation
American Land Sovereignty Protection Act. H.R. 883 was introduced by Representative DonYoung on March 6, 2001, and referred to the Committee on Resources. It has 30 cosponsors. The legislationamends the National Historic Preservation Act of1980 ( P.L. 96-515 ) to require a determination by the Interior Department that the designation of a new site will notadversely affect private land within ten milesof the site, a report to Congress on the impact of the designation on existing and future uses of the land andsurrounding private land, and specific authorization byCongress for new World Heritage site designations. The bill also terminates and prohibits unauthorized designationof biosphere reserves under the UNESCOMan and the Biosphere Program.
Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Appropriations Act, 2001. ( P.L. 106-429 , as passed byCongress, enacted by reference in H.R. 5526 .) Section 580 of this bill states that none of the fundsappropriated or made available by this Act may beprovided for the U.S. contribution to the United Nations World Heritage Fund. P.L. 106-429 was signed by thePresident on November 6, 2000.
subsections: section_title: Issues for Congress
subsections: section_title: Impact of the Convention on U.S. Sovereignty
paragraphs: Although the debate on the American Land Sovereignty Protection bill was often couched in terms which included U.N. influence over U.S. parks andmonuments, supporters of the American Land Sovereignty Protection Act were primarily concerned that a lack ofa congressional role in designating the sites anda lack of congressional oversight of implementation of the act undermines the congressional role under theConstitution to make rules governing land belongingto the United States. As the House Resources Committee web site on the legislation stated: "By using theseinternational designations, the Executive Branch isable to guide domestic land use policies without consulting Congress." (2) Supporters express concern that even though there may be no internationalor U.N. directcontrol of U.S. sites, federal agency managers may take into account the international rules of the World Heritageprogram in making land use decisions, or usethe designation to undermine local land use decisions, often without the advice or even the knowledge of localauthorities or property owners. 
The World Heritage Convention does not give the United Nations authority over U.S. sites. The Department of State has testified that under the terms of theWorld Heritage Convention, management and sovereignty over the sites remain with the country where the site islocated. Supporters of the World Heritagesystem note that member countries nominate sites for the World Heritage List voluntarily and agree to develop lawsand procedures to protect them using theirown constitutional procedures. Most of the U.S. sites named have already been accorded protection in law asnational monuments or parks. In commenting onthe bill, the Clinton Administration stated that the designation does not give the United Nations the authority toaffect land management decisions within theUnited States and has not been utilized to exclude Congress from land management decisions. The Department ofState noted that the Convention itself has norole or authority beyond listing sites and offering technical advice and assistance. Supporters of the conventionassert that World Heritage status has been theimpetus behind closer cooperation between federal agencies and state and local authorities.
section_title: Impact of Placement on the World Heritage List
paragraphs: Inclusion on the World Heritage List increases knowledge and interest in sites throughout the world. Many countries use the World Heritage designation toincrease tourism to site areas. Designation also brings international attention and support to protect endangeredsites. In 1993, the World Heritage Committeesupported the United States in protecting Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve by publicizing U.S. concerns abouta Canadian open pit mine near the Bay andreminding the Canadian government of its obligations under the Convention to protect the site. In 1996,international concern, including concern raised by U.S.citizens, was instrumental in changing the plans of a Polish company to build a shopping center near AuschwitzConcentration Camp in Poland, a World HeritageSite. In March of 2000, Mexico dropped plans to develop a salt plant on the shores of a gray whale breeding groundin a protected Mexican area designated as aWorld Heritage Site. 
Supporters of legislation restricting U.S. World Heritage participation express concern about the impact of the designation on private property near the sites. Theysuggest that agreeing to manage the site in accordance with the international convention may have an impact on theuse of private land nearby, or may even be anindirect way of complying with treaties which the Congress has not approved. They claim that advocacy groupsuse federal regulations and international land usedesignations to frustrate the public land management decision-making process. The Interior Department hastestified, on the other hand, that the nominationprocedure includes open public meetings and congressional notification on sites being considered.
section_title: Yellowstone National Park
paragraphs: In June 1995, the U.S. Department of the Interior notified the World Heritage Committee that Yellowstone was in danger and requested an on-site visit. In afollow up letter, the Department of the Interior noted actions which the United States was taking to address thesituation. A team organized by the World HeritageCenter reviewed actual and potential threats to the park. In December 1995, based on this visit and consultationswith U.S. government officials, the WorldHeritage Committee placed Yellowstone on the List of World Heritage in Danger, citing threats posed by plans fora gold mine just over 1 mile from the Park, theintroduction of non-native fish into Yellowstone Lake, and activities to eliminate brucellosis from Park bison herds. The World Heritage Committee noted thatany response to the threat was a U.S. domestic decision and asked that the U.S. government keep the committeeinformed of actions taken by the United Statesand to assess what more must be done in order to remove Yellowstone from the endangered list. 
Both the non native fish and the Park bison herds are the subject of ongoing federal, state, and local discussions.The gold mine issue has been resolved. Congress appropriated funds to compensate the mine owners for not developing it. The non-native fish problemis ultimately unresolvable, but Park authoritiesare working to minimize the number of non native fish in Yellowstone lake. The Administration will continue toreport annually to the World HeritageCommittee on both Yellowstone and Everglades National Parks until they are removed from the endangered list. The World Heritage Committee will continueto list both parks on the World Heritage in Danger List in consultation with the United States. The Decembermeeting of the World Heritage Committee will bethe next opportunity for the United States to report on actions taken to eliminate the danger to the parks, or todiscuss changes to their designation. It is too earlyto know what the Bush Administration position will be on this topic.
section_title: Footnotes
paragraphs: 1. (back) Convention concerning the protection ofthe world cultural and natural heritage. 27 UST 37.
2. (back) U.S. Congress. House. Committee onResources. http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/resources/106cong/fullcomm/sovereignty.htm .