Around the world in 800 stops: the World Heritage Sites

It’s hard to believe that a glacier in Greenland and the gritty burg of Liverpool, England, have anything in common. But they do. They’re both UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

Nearly 800 places, daunting in their sheer diversity, bear this label. Some, such as the Grand Canyon and the Acropolis, are well known. Many others are not. But if you’re a tourist who’s curious about culture or nature, they’re worth learning about.

What knits these sites together is the World Heritage Committee, an arm of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or UNESCO, which is based in Paris. Each year, this multinational panel debates the merits of sites nominated by member nations and adds some to the roster.

To make the list, posted on whc.unesco.org, a site must be “of outstanding universal value” for its natural or cultural heritage.

Why was Liverpool among 34 additions this year? It may be known worldwide as the birthplace of the Beatles, but that’s not why it made the list. “Liverpool played an important role in the growth of the British Empire,” the committee said, referring to its history as a maritime mercantile city.

Greenland’s Ilulissat ice fiord was added this year because it’s the mouth of the Sermeq Kujalleq glacier, one of the world’s most active, which moves about 62 feet each day and calves more ice than any glacier outside Antarctica, according to the committee.

The U.S. is home to 20 World Heritage Sites. Although they include the Statue of Liberty and Charlottesville, Va. (for Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello and the University of Virginia), most are national parks.

California claims two such sites. Redwood National Park, north of San Francisco, made the list for having the “tallest and most impressive trees in the world,” and Yosemite National Park is listed for its “excellent overview of all kinds of granite relief fashioned by glaciation” and “great variety of flora and fauna.”

The U.S., like many nations in the program, has a lengthy wish list for future nominations, including Alaska’s Denali National Park, California’s Death Valley National Park, the Washington Monument and the Brooklyn Bridge.

Although the World Heritage Committee’s roster is a useful guide to treasures that experts consider worth preserving -- and visiting -- it’s also a matter of opinion. Choices can seem arbitrary. For instance, why are the house and studio of Mexican architect Luis Barragan on the list, but not the Frank Lloyd Wright Home and Studio in Oak Park, Ill.?

The simplest answer is that the Barragan site was nominated and the Wright site was not -- although advocates for Wright’s legacy are working toward that goal.

“It’s a very long process, involving a lot of political contacts,” said Joan Mercuri, president and chief executive of the nonprofit Frank Lloyd Wright Preservation Trust in Oak Park, which oversees the studio. “You have to build support for it.”

Nations nominate their own sites; in the U.S., applications go through the Department of the Interior.

Nominations are reviewed by the 21-member World Heritage Committee, chosen from among 178 nations that help fund the program, established in 1972 to rally international support for preserving and protecting the world’s wonders.

For such ambitious goals, the program has minuscule muscle: a staff of about 40, an annual budget of less than $15 million and no legal authority to compel countries to protect the sites that it so grandly “inscribes,” onto its list each year.

But it does have the power of persuasion and even embarrassment. The chief weapon in this battle is the committee’s List of World Heritage in Danger, which shines a critical spotlight on notable places that are threatened by war, natural disasters, pollution, poaching and more.

There are 35 such sites, including one in the U.S.: Everglades National Park in Florida, for more than a decade listed as endangered because of urban growth, pollution, falling water levels and other problems.

Everglades spokesman Rick Cook said the park has taken protective steps, such as banning commercial fishing. But he said the biggest issue remains outside its control: nearly 2,000 man-made canals and waterways north of the park that interfere with water flow into the wetlands, threatening wildlife. The price tag to solve the problems runs into the billions, he added.

Last year, the World Heritage Committee removed Yellowstone National Park from its list of endangered World Heritage Sites after a campaign that pitted the Department of the Interior against environmental advocates.

The park was put on that list in 1995 because of concerns that included disease outbreaks among its bison, outdated sewage treatment plants and a proposal to open mines in the area.

Contending that these concerns had been or were being addressed, the Interior Department asked that Yellowstone be removed from the list. Some environmentalists and a draft report by park staff disputed this progress. In summer 2003, the World Heritage Committee sided with Interior.

In the last decade, the committee has declared victory in campaigns to stop the decay and pillaging of Cambodia’s temples and palaces at Angkor and to block plans for a salt plant at Mexico’s St. Ignacio lagoon, part of the Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve, where gray whales breed.

These efforts can be controversial. In Mexico, foes said barring the salt plant would cost the area hundreds of jobs. In Liverpool, business interests expressed concern that the city’s designation as a World Heritage Site would stifle efforts to modernize the waterfront.

Politics aside, the World Heritage Committee’s growing list of significant sites is a valuable source of suggestions for travel itineraries.

Hear more tips from Jane Engle on Travel Insider topics at www.latimes.com/engle. She welcomes comments but can’t respond individually to letters and calls. Write to Travel Insider, Los Angeles Times, 202 W. 1st St., Los Angeles, CA 90012, or e-mail jane.engle@latimes.com.