Introduction
There is a plan to explore seeking World Heritage status for Glastonbury. Acccordingly questions arise as to what would be gained and what would be lost if Glastonbury were approved for UNESCO World Heritage listing? Would that beckon in a new golden age of pilgrams and tourists? Or would it profane the sacred land?
The attraction of Glastonbury
Mine is not a unique story or experience. It is of arriving at Glastonbury and having an inescapable and certain feeling of having arrived “home.” Many people speak of this experience. Thus, without a doubt, there is something special spiritually happening in and around Glastonbury. No matter what religion or spirituality or deity someone resonates with, there is something here. And doubtless this has been felt through the ages. Glastonbury and the land around it are sacred to many through many different traditions.
Not everything is known about Glastonbury and its history. New revelations and new information frequently come to light as more research is done.
Whatever this energy, this healing beneficience, this sacred and divine feeling–whatever name you wish to give it– it is there. However, is it possible or even desirable to try to label as cultural heritage and safeguard it under the guise of a World Heritage listing?
While the stated aim of the UNESCO listing is the safeguarding of heritage, does what is in Glastonbury need to be safeguarded? Does a UNESCO listing in fact put it at risk? Is the motivation to get a listing about safeguarding or attracting more tourist income?
Safeguarding what matters?
From the information available about the interest in an approved listing for Glastonbury, it appears that approval as a World Heritage site is being sought, rather than listing of a heritage element as intangible cultural heritage.
The stated aim of the UNESCO 1972 World Heritage Convention is to protect cultural and natural heritage at an international level. The World Heritage Convention focuses on so-called material cultural heritage. This is in contrast to the focus of the UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. In contrast, the 2003 Convention focuses on intangible cultural heritage rather than material or tangible heritage.
World cultural heritage listing at UNESCO
The World Heritage Convention maintains two different listings of heritage. One is the World Heritage List. This list contains cultural heritage elements that have been approved for listing by the World Heritage Committee. According to Article 11 (2) of the World Heritage Convention, the heritage elements on this list are seen to have “outstanding universal value.” A list of these heritage elements can be found here.
The second list, according to Article 11 (4) is a “List of World Heritage in Danger.” This list is limited to heritage elements that are deemed to be at risk due to ” serious and specific dangers.” The list of those heritage elements can be seen here.
Dangers of World Heritage listing
So what is the concern about listing Glastonbury as a World Heritage site? There are studies and articles that point to the problems endemic in the listing of a site on the World Heritage List. This study points to potential damage to the human rights of local communities. This article by The Guardian indicates concerns about “invasive tourism.”
This is just a sampling of concerns about the effects on a site and local population when a heritage element is listed on the World Heritage List.
There is no guarantee, then, that becoming listed as a World Heritage site will safeguard the Glastonbury sites and ensure their continued existence. A World Heritage listing gives lip service to community permission and safeguarding. But the studies pointed to above indicate that a great deal of damage can potentially be done by listing a site as World Heritage.
There seems to be little recognition by the proponents of listing of the harms that can come with such a recognition. As well, there is no indication that there is a risk to the sites within Glastonbury without heritage listing. The only dangers to these sites seem to be wrapped up in what might come with the increased tourism and commodification that seem to inevitably accompany a World Heritage listing.
Conclusion
When I go for a walk in nearby woods or countryside lanes, it is impossible to avoid the sights of human damage. There is frequently trash littered across the path. Sometimes small saplings are damaged or even destroyed. Dogwalkers delight in a festive offering of dog poop in plastic bags tied to trees. Humans often damage and destroy the attraction and health of the land around them. Unthinkingly. Uncaringly. No regard or respect for the land and the countryside lanes. Would those visiting adhere to EarthWise values in respecting locales and sites? Would the value of the rich mix of myth and legend be itself at risk and become obscured?
Attracting even more human activity to Glastonbury means that the damage which could be done to the land is magnified. How much trash would increased tourism bring about? What unthinking tourist would trample crops in private fields, damage young trees in the Avalon Orchard, make dog poop offerings where ever the mood struck them? How much would a World Heritage Listing of Glastonbury and its sacred sites profane the sacred?