Top 10 miest, ktoré musíte vidieť vo Francúzsku
Francúzsko je známe pre svoje významné kultúrne dedičstvo, výnimočnú kuchyňu a atraktívnu krajinu, vďaka čomu je najnavštevovanejšou krajinou sveta. Od návštevy starých…
Spanning deserts and coral reefs, war zones and rainforests, the UNESCO “World Heritage in Danger” list highlights sites whose Outstanding Universal Value is under threat. As of 2025, UNESCO reports 53 properties on the Danger List (some third‐party sources still cite 56 due to recent removals). The list is intended “to inform the international community of conditions which threaten” each site’s heritage and to trigger corrective action. This tour weaves together official data, expert analysis and on-the-ground stories to explain why these treasures (from Aleppo’s ruins to the Everglades wetlands) are endangered, how UNESCO and local partners respond, and how readers – whether travelers, scholars or concerned citizens – can help. Along the way we will spotlight iconic examples (e.g. Great Barrier Reef, Venice, Machu Picchu) to clarify why some famous sites remain off the official Danger List, and show how other sites have been saved or restored. As UNESCO’s Director-General Audrey Azoulay put it, “when sites are removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger, it is a great victory for all” – a hard-won triumph forged by science, funding, and community care.
Short fact: according to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 53 sites are currently inscribed as endangered. (International outlets often quote 56 because three African sites were only recently delisted, illustrating how the list is dynamic.) The Danger List differs from the main World Heritage List: every site on the Danger List is already inscribed for its outstanding value, but has been flagged as under proven threat. By contrast, the main World Heritage List simply catalogues sites of exceptional cultural or natural importance. Being on the Danger List does not remove a site from heritage status – rather, it unlocks emergency support. In fact, UNESCO’s rules specifically allow the Committee to allocate “immediate assistance from the World Heritage Fund” to any site it inscribes as endangered. Listing can thus quickly mobilize experts and funding.
The sites on the Danger List span every region, from Mali and Madagascar to Syria and the United States. Many faces of trouble are represented: armed conflicts, unchecked development, pollution, climate change, wildlife loss, and tourism pressures. Indeed, UNESCO warns that armed conflict, earthquakes, pollution, poaching, uncontrolled urbanization and tourism pose “major problems” for heritage worldwide. A recent analysis underscored the scale of climate risk: nearly 73% of UNESCO World Heritage sites are highly exposed to water-related hazards like floods, droughts or sea-level rise. As we will see, the most endangered places include Syria’s ancient cities, African rainforests and wildlife parks, endangered wetlands like the Everglades, and historic towns threatened by mining or mega-projects.
Despite this sobering picture, the narrative is not only one of loss. Over the past decades some sites have indeed recovered enough to be removed from the list – rare but notable victories. For example, the Galápagos Islands (Ecuador) faced invasive-species and development pressures but were formally cleared off the Danger List in 2010. Likewise the Everglades National Park (USA), long degraded by water mismanagement, was delisted in 2007 after major restoration funding. And just this year UNESCO announced that Madagascar’s Rainforests of the Atsinanana have rebounded so well (63% of lost forest cover restored) that the site was removed from danger. These successes show that with sustained effort – science, policy and funding – even dire listings can be reversed. This guide will detail those stories as well.
Overall, readers will learn what the Danger List is and isn’t, why the UNESCO Committee adds or removes sites, the threats and case studies for both cultural and natural heritage, how governance and law interact, plus practical advice for visitors, researchers and activists. Armed with facts from UNESCO and frontline reports, the aim is to illuminate this complex topic so you understand both the urgency and the real avenues of hope.
Obsah
The UNESCO List of World Heritage in Danger is an official tool under the 1972 Convention. UNESCO describes its purpose as informing the global community “of conditions which threaten the very characteristics” that earned a site its heritage status. In practice, that means the World Heritage Committee formally declares a site endangered if documented threats rise to certain criteria (detailed below). Importantly, the list’s intent is corrective, not punitive – it “encourages corrective action” and opens the door to help.
As of 2025, UNESCO’s own site lists 53 properties on the Danger List. (For context, Wikipedia’s Danger List page notes 56 entries as of April 2024 – the extra three reflecting sites added before late-2024 that UNESCO has since removed..) These 53 range from Yemen’s old cities to parks in Africa. By category they include cultural, natural, and a few mixed sites. One can browse UNESCO’s official page (the link below) to see every site, its year of inscription, and date added to danger.
The count is not fixed. New sites join at annual Committee meetings, while others exit once their problems are solved. For example, UNESCO reported in 2025 that it removed Madagascar’s Rainforests of the Atsinanana, Egypt’s Abu Mena and Libya’s Ghadames from the list, praising strong conservation work. Even before 2025, the Everglades and Honduras’s Río Plátano were removed in 2007. This fluidity explains why news articles, travel sites and even Wikipedia may show slightly different totals or give different “top 10” lists depending on publication date. Always check the latest UNESCO World Heritage Centre website (whc.unesco.org) for the current list, and note that some tourism articles still quote older figures.
In short, the Danger List is effectively a crisis-list for already-inscribed sites. It does not include famous sites like the Great Barrier Reef or Venice – at least not formally. (Those are often discussed in UNESCO documents, but as of now neither has been inscribed to the Danger List.) Instead, the list tends to feature lesser-known places whose problems meet the strict criteria below. The upside is that listing triggers funding: as UNESCO explains, inscription on the Danger List “allows immediate assistance from the World Heritage Fund” and signals an urgent call for help.
UNESCO’s page currently tallies 53 endangered sites. If you see a different number (say, 56), it’s because three sites were removed recently at the 2025 Committee session. For example, once-endangered sites in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda and Senegal were delisted in recent years after conservation measures. As of October 2025, this dynamic count stands at 53. (To avoid confusion: the main World Heritage List has 1,000+ sites; the Danger List’s 53 is a small subset.)
Because countries or NGOs sometimes highlight candidates for inclusion, one may encounter differing dates or priorities, but only the official Committee decisions truly count. For instance, in 2021 the UK’s Stonehenge almost appeared on the list due to a proposed highway tunnel, but that was a warning rather than an actual inscription. In contrast, the Danger List is based on documented threats to the Outstanding Universal Value of a site, as verified in UNESCO State of Conservation reports (see below).
The process is governed by the UNESCO Operational Guidelines and Committee votes. Any State Party (country) can request its own heritage site be declared in danger (usually to attract help). Likewise, UNESCO’s advisory bodies (ICCROM, IUCN, etc.) or even concerned NGOs can provide information that prompts scrutiny. Each year at the World Heritage Committee meeting, draft decisions list sites to inscribe or delist. A proposal needs the Committee’s agreement.
Formally, a site is inscribed if it faces “specific and proven imminent danger” (for example, war damage or rapid deterioration) or “potential danger” from known threats. The Committee then typically requires the State Party to prepare a corrective action plan. If, after time, the Committee deems the threats resolved, it can vote to remove the site from the Danger List. Removal means UNESCO believes the site’s values are sufficiently restored. To date, only a handful of sites have been delisted in this way (see the case studies below).
As UNESCO notes, listing is not meant as a punishment. The goal is to “marshal international support” for needed conservation work. Indeed, some countries welcome a Danger listing (treating it as a call for aid), while others resist it out of national pride. Either way, the World Heritage Committee insists that any site on the list must have a funded plan to save it – otherwise it risks eventual deletion from the main World Heritage List.
The Decision to declare a site “in danger” follows explicit UNESCO criteria. Paragraphs 179–180 of the Convention’s Operational Guidelines state that for cultural properties, dangers may be “specific and proven” (like serious structural damage, decay or loss of authenticity) or “potential” (like unauthorized development or the threat of armed conflict). Similarly for natural sites, ascertained dangers include catastrophic population declines or ecosystem destruction (e.g. flooding by a new dam), whereas potential dangers could be land-use changes or climate impacts.
Crucially, the World Heritage Committee must find that the site’s condition meets at least one of these criteria. If so, the Committee obliges the State Party to “develop and adopt, in consultation with the State Party, a programme for corrective measures”. In practice this means teams (sometimes including UNESCO experts) often conduct missions to the site. They produce a State of Conservation (SOC) report, which is debated by the Committee at each session. These SOC reports become a matter of public record on UNESCO’s site. If a State Party has not acted, the Committee can impose deadlines or even sanctions; conversely, if the situation improves, the site can be delisted.
UNESCO’s reactive monitoring process ties into this. Once listed as World Heritage (or when newly endangered), the World Heritage Centre expects annual updates on a site’s conservation status. These reports come from the country and may be supplemented by third-party data (NGO or media reports). The Centre and advisory bodies (IUCN for nature, ICCROM for culture) review all info and submit an evaluation to the Committee. When a committee session convenes, sites under danger or under special monitoring are discussed in detail. The resulting committee decision – another public document – will typically commend successes, note failings, and either renew the danger listing or remove the site.
Because UNESCO is not a regulatory body with enforcement power, the actual protection of sites remains with national governments. UNESCO’s role is to facilitate: it provides technical expertise, funding, and global visibility. For example, if armed conflict devastates a site, UNESCO can send an emergency mission, raise funds through its Heritage Emergency Fund, and coordinate NGOs. But national laws and officials must implement preservation measures on the ground. In contested zones, UNESCO tries to be neutral; it may work with provisional authorities or UN Peacekeeping missions to safeguard heritage during conflict.
Importantly, as a procedural consequence of “in danger” status, the site automatically becomes eligible for emergency support. The World Heritage Committee “allocates immediate assistance from the World Heritage Fund” to sites upon inscription. This fund, financed by UNESCO’s member states, can cover anything from emergency stabilization to restoration planning. Since 2015 UNESCO also has a Heritage Emergency Fund devoted to cultural sites at risk from war or natural disasters. For example, crisis funds helped salvage Timbuktu’s manuscripts during the Malian civil war. In sum, Danger-list status is essentially a fast-track ticket to UNESCO and partner assistance, provided the country cooperates.
The Danger List’s ultimate test is whether it spurs action. By alerting the international community, it can rally donors and NGOs to a site. It also gives local communities a louder voice; for example, villagers near Cambodia’s Koh Ker temple championed UNESCO attention by highlighting the site’s poor state. And for journalists or researchers, UNESCO releases all committee decisions and SOC reports publicly, so the process is transparent and citable.
A final legal note: if a site’s value is entirely lost, UNESCO can remove it not only from the Danger List but from World Heritage entirely. This has happened rarely – notably to Syria’s Dresden Elbe Valley (delisted 2009) and Oman’s Arabian Oryx Sanctuary (2007). In those cases, irreversible change meant “the characteristics which determined its inscription” no longer existed. But removal from the Danger List itself is more common once threats are fixed.
Endangered sites face a wide range of hazards. For clarity, experts commonly group them as follows:
Each endangered site typically faces a combination of the above factors. For any given site, UNESCO’s State of Conservation reports pinpoint the relevant mix. In an assessment of all Danger List entries, the leading drivers are conflict and climate. UNESCO’s analyses explicitly warn that war leaves common ruins in Syria, Libya, and elsewhere, while climate-related hazards now threaten the majority of sites globally.
The danger sites are unevenly distributed. As of 2024, the Wikipedia Danger List summary (which closely tracks UNESCO data) shows 23 sites in the Arab States, 14 in Africa, 7 in Europe/North America, 6 in Latin America & the Caribbean, and 6 in Asia & the Pacific. (Note: one can click the embedded map below to view exact countries.) Natural sites (parks, forests, reefs) make up about 17% of all endangered sites, and the rest are cultural or mixed. Interestingly, of the 16 natural sites on the list, 11 are in Africa – reflecting that many of those African parks face poaching and logging. Europe has relatively few (many European heritage sites have strong protections or fewer large wilderness areas), but its sites tend to be historic urban centers at risk from tourism or development (e.g. London’s Tower, L’viv and Kyiv now, etc.).
UNESCO’s own data portal allows visualization of trends over time. From it we learn that the 1990s saw many African and Middle Eastern sites added (often due to conflicts), while the 2000s brought more Latin America and Asia (due to development or nature threats). Since 2010 the new additions have included European/Eurasian sites (e.g. Vienna, Ukraine, and the Alps) and several UNESCO transboundary sites. The region with the largest net increase in recent years is Arab States, as many Syrian and Yemeni sites were listed after civil wars.
A related chart shows that of all sites inscribed on the World Heritage List (1,200+ in total), a small but growing share end up in Danger. However, re-inscriptions can reduce that fraction: the past decade saw a slight net decline in count, because some sites improved faster than new ones were added. (UNESCO’s numbers are updated yearly; users can download the full Danger List from UNESCO for their own analysis.)
Below is a sampling of noteworthy sites on the official UNESCO Danger List, organized by region. Each name links to UNESCO’s page with full details. (The entire official list is 53 entries as of 2025.)
This regional tour highlights the diversity: UNESCO endangered sites include not just a handful of tourist attractions, but also remote wildlife preserves and ancient industrial landscapes. (For an exhaustive breakdown by country, see the UNESCO Danger List page.)
While UNESCO’s presentation is administrative, travelers and researchers often want a narrative context. Below are brief regional highlights to give a human feel to these endangered places. Each “tour” suggests the mix of adventure and caution needed.
Each region’s tour highlights human stories: park rangers risking their lives for wildlife, villagers barring illegal loggers, architects debating skylines, and everyday people campaigning to save homes and histories. These narrative threads underscore that heritage conservation is ultimately a human endeavour as much as a bureaucratic process.
Aleppo, Syria: One of the world’s oldest cities, Aleppo’s Old City was a UNESCO site famous for its citadel, mosques and souks. In 2013 the entire Old City of Aleppo was placed on the Danger List due to the civil war’s destruction. UN reports and photographs document that artillery fire and intentional targeting demolished large sections of the ancient market and homes. UNESCO’s 2023 SOC report notes that “many historic buildings have been destroyed or severely damaged”. Conserving Aleppo now means stabilizing ruins and digitizing records. International teams have begun mapping the destroyed Citadel and storing 3D scans of Islamic-era facades. At its 2024 session, the World Heritage Committee approved a plan for Aleppo’s recovery involving local architects trained in traditional methods. As of late 2025, limited safe zones allow scholars to reassemble mosaics and plan restoration – but widespread rebuilding is limited by the ongoing conflict. Aleppo exemplifies how conflict can all but erase UNESCO heritage, and how recovering even fragments requires years of effort.
Great Barrier Reef, Australia: Often raised in Danger-list debates, the Reef is a natural World Heritage site facing catastrophic coral bleaching from warming oceans. Mass bleaching events in recent decades have killed large swaths of coral. UNESCO’s Reactive Monitoring reports (2012–2021) repeatedly expressed “serious concern” but stopped short of listing the Reef as endangered, partly because the Australian government pledged massive water-quality programs and coral revival research. Nevertheless, the Reef’s story is instructive. The Australian government has since invested in monitoring; private dive operators educate visitors on reef care; and recent legislation limits new coastal development runoff. In 2022 UNESCO noted that while 34% of World Heritage sites are already impacted by climate, sites like the Reef are in a special category. The Reef case shows how scientific lobbying (e.g. by marine biologists) can influence UNESCO: the site was put on a “watch list” that pushes Australia to reduce pollution and greenhouse emissions. Tour operators now encourage climate action: travelers supporting carbon offsets or reef restoration funds can make a difference, though the underlying threat (global warming) requires broad policy change.
Everglades National Park, USA: America’s largest sub-tropical wilderness joined the Danger List in 1993 after Hurricane Andrew and decades of drainage had left only ~50% of its wetlands intact. Main threats were water diversion and pollution. U.S. federal and state agencies responded with the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) – a 35-year, multi-billion-dollar program to restore natural water flows. By 2007, UNESCO judged the Everglades sufficiently stabilized and removed it from the list. Key actions included plugging canals, removing invasive species, and engineering wetlands to filter agricultural runoff. The UNESCO news release praised the “scientific and financial resources” the U.S. invested in park rehabilitation. For visitors today, this success means most of the park’s flora and fauna have rebounded: eagles, manatees and orchids are again commonplace. Ongoing work (watching for algal blooms, adapting to sea-level rise) shows restoration is continuous. The Everglades demonstrate that with sustained funding and policy shifts (clean water laws, changed land-use), even severely damaged natural World Heritage sites can recover enough to exit danger.
Virunga and Kahuzi-Biega National Parks (DRC): In Central Africa, conflict and lawlessness have imperiled great apes and elephants. Virunga National Park (home to mountain gorillas and part of the Congo Rift) was listed in 1994 due to war and poaching. UNESCO’s 1997 decision explicitly noted that conflict had caused “influx of refugees, deforestation and poaching” at Virunga and nearby parks. In practice, decades of militia violence have continued. Both Virunga and Kahuzi-Biega (nearby, a chimpanzee refuge) saw dramatic declines in wildlife by the early 2000s. International NGOs (WWF, the Virunga Foundation) eventually stepped in. Their strategy combined armed park rangers (to fend off militias) with community programs that gave locals a stake in tourism and agroforestry. Repeated UNESCO SOC reports credit these efforts: by the 2010s poaching had fallen and at least one gorilla population stabilized. (Yet both remain on the Danger List, as DRC’s broader instability is unresolved.) These parks highlight the perils of linking biodiversity with conflict: one can “visit” Virunga safely today only by joining tightly controlled gorilla treks, whose fees support local development projects. They also show the crucial role of NGOs. The Virunga team has been awarded international attention; by leveraging media and celebrity (films and photography), they have galvanized funding that even UNESCO could not provide on its own.
Roșia Montană Mining Landscape, Romania: A unique case of cultural heritage vs industry. Roșia Montană’s Roman-era gold mines and medieval village were inscribed on the Danger List in 2021, solely over the threat of renewed open-pit mining. UNESCO’s justification stated that resuming large-scale gold extraction would destroy archaeological layers. The site is famous for its extensive mine galleries and historic wooden church structures. The contentious background: for years an international mining company has pursued a multibillion-dollar project there, leading to protests by historians and locals. UNESCO’s listing did not ban mining legally (the company subsequently sued Romania under an investment treaty), but it did apply global pressure. When the mine project was halted, UNESCO prepared a corrective plan. Today, Romanian authorities are working with heritage experts to survey and conserve the site. Techniques include detailed 3D mapping of tunnels and digitizing ancient inscriptions before any excavation. The Roșia Montană story shows how heritage protection can clash with economic interests. Success here depends on legal and diplomatic resolutions outside UNESCO alone. That said, even being on the list gave local activists a stronger voice internationally, and UNESCO help for stabilizing old mine shafts is being provided.
Once a site is listed as endangered, UNESCO and international partners aim to turn the situation around. Key mechanisms include funding, technical assistance, and formal plans.
First, as noted, inscription unlock emergency funding. The World Heritage Fund (WHF) is UNESCO’s general heritage fund. When a site is added to the Danger List, the Committee typically earmarks WHF grants immediately. For example, after adding Timbuktu (Mali) to the list in 2012, UNESCO gave emergency funds to shore up mosque walls against collapse. Besides the WHF, there is the Heritage Emergency Fund (established 2015) specifically for crises in conflict or disaster zones. These pooled donations finance airlifts of artifacts, emergency guards, or specialized conservation experts. In recent conflicts (Iraq, Syria, Ukraine), UNESCO has activated this fund to secure museums’ collections and provide satellite imagery analysis of damage.
Second, the Committee typically mandates that the State Party draft a Corrective or Emergency Conservation Plan. This plan, sometimes called a “Phase II” as per the Operational Guidelines, must detail measurable actions to address each threat. The plan often involves timeline commitments, legislative changes, or infrastructure projects. For example, after listing Lake Ohrid (North Macedonia/Albania), the 2024 UNESCO decision insisted on new sewage treatment facilities and stricter zoning laws. For Roșia Montană, UNESCO’s 2023 report includes recommendations for inventorying archaeological remains and halting new mining permits.
UNESCO also leverages its partnerships. In Africa, it has coordinated with the African World Heritage Fund and UNESCO field offices to train park rangers and lawyers in heritage law. In Asia, it has worked with ICOMOS (the cultural advisory body) and local universities to study conservation options (e.g., reconstituting collapsed temples in Bamiyan, Afghanistan). It will sometimes fund pilot projects: one example is a UNESCO-supported program that installed remote cameras in Madagascar’s Atsinanana forests, enabling rapid response to illegal logging. After years of such work, Madagascar’s forests improved dramatically, leading to the site’s delisting.
Crucially, any removal from the Danger List is considered a success story. UNESCO proudly highlights these. Recent examples:
– Madagaskar – the Rainforests of Atsinanana was removed in 2025. UNESCO reported 63% of previously deforested areas had regrown under new management, and lemur poaching hit a 10-year low.
– Egypt – Abu Mena (early Christianity pilgrimage site) was delisted in 2025 after groundwater pumps lowered the water table, preventing structural collapses.
– Libya – Old Town of Ghadames was taken off the list in 2025 following restoration of buildings and infrastructure by local partners.
– Konžská demokratická republika – at the 2023 session, Garamba, Okapi and other DRC sites were removed from the list after militias receded and park management improved.
– USA/Honduras – as noted, Everglades and Río Plátano were delisted in 2007 after massive ecosystem rehabilitation.
These removals share common features: a mix of funding (from state budgets or international grants), local capacity-building, legal enforcement, and community engagement. Importantly, most have a strong monitoring component: committees insisted on periodic verification that solutions hold. The Azoulay quote from 2025 sums it up: bringing sites out of danger is a “special effort” but one UNESCO is “pursuing…in Africa” and elsewhere, with tangible results.
Finally, UNESCO’s mandates extend beyond the Danger List. Even for sites nie on it, UNESCO’s Reactive Monitoring and periodic reporting keep pressure on governments. For example, Venice and Machu Picchu have never been inscribed as endangered, yet UNESCO has opened cases to review tourism limits, issuing warnings that are followed by local policy adjustments. Similarly, if a journalist or scholar uncovers an emerging threat – say, news of illegal logging at a tentative site – they can alert the UNESCO World Heritage Centre. While UNESCO cannot enforce domestic law, it can issue press releases or statements of concern that shame authorities into action, as with Lake Ohrid’s 2024 warning.
Modern science and tech are powerful allies for endangered sites. Two categories dominate:
Other tech: UNDRR-certified GPS trackers on endangered elephants in Garamba park, acoustic sensors to detect illegal nighttime logging, even AI models predicting flood risk zones for medieval castles. These efforts show how interdisciplinary research (combining ecology, engineering, computer science) is now integral to heritage work. UNESCO regularly partners with scientific bodies (like IUCN or national heritage labs) to translate innovations into local action plans.
World Heritage listing is fundamentally a voluntary international mechanism. UNESCO cannot arrest loggers or prosecute planners – it operates by treaty obligations and peer pressure. Each site’s fate is tied to its state’s laws and politics.
Internationally, the 1972 Convention is not a court, so UNESCO can only recommend. But once a site is on the Danger List, governments often face diplomatic pressures: they must report to UNESCO annually and answer to the Global Committee. Failure to protect can affect a country’s standing, and it can lose access to the World Heritage Fund or goodwill. In practice, National Heritage or Culture Ministries implement UNESCO guidelines through local laws. For instance, many African parks on the Danger List are also protected by national conservation statutes and receive funding from bodies like the World Bank or NGOs — UNESCO’s role is coordination and advocacy.
Territorial disputes further complicate matters. Some heritage sites lie in contested regions. For example, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem was listed by UNESCO under the “State of Palestine,” which Russia and a few others recognize, but not by countries aligned with Israel. UNESCO’s own tradition is to avoid taking sides, but UN resolutions require it to list sites as the requesting party chooses. The recent listing of sites in Ukraine under Ukraine’s name, despite Russian occupation, followed the Convention’s rules that the State Party is the one that inscribed the site. Conversely, Israel suspended cooperation with UNESCO when Jerusalem was listed under Palestine’s proposal (a political dispute outside UNESCO’s purview).
The main takeaway is that success often requires legal reform. Many Danger-list decisions end by urging governments to pass stricter heritage laws or enforce environmental regulations. The UNESCO Committee’s decisions (which we cite above) frequently contain phrases like “the State Party should…” – these carry moral weight but no enforcement guarantee. NGOs and civil society can sometimes take up the slack: for instance, in Hungary local activists sued to protect the Hortobágy National Park (a WH site threatened by water diversion), citing both EU and UNESCO obligations.
Travelers can be allies of endangered heritage – but only if careful. Here are some guidelines: – Research Ahead: Check the current status of a site on UNESCO’s website or credible news. Some Danger List sites are active conflict zones or have travel advisories (e.g. Syria, Libya, parts of DRC). Safety first: if a country warns against travel, don’t go. – Use Official Guides: When visiting a listed site, always go with certified local guides and licensed tour operators. This ensures your fees (and any donations) flow to preservation trusts or community funds. Ask if part of your ticket supports site maintenance or local communities. – Minimize Impact: Follow “leave no trace” principles. Stay on marked trails, don’t remove any artifacts or natural items, and avoid touching fragile walls or corals. If drone-flying or photography is regulated at a site, follow rules strictly. Overcrowding is often the problem, so travel off-season when possible. – Podpora miestnych ekonomík: Buying handicrafts or services from locals linked to a heritage site can provide jobs that discourage looting or illegal cutting of trees. For example, communities around Virunga now operate gorilla lodges and crafts markets that directly finance park protection. – Share the Story: Ethical travelers often share insights on social media. Posting about responsible practices (e.g. avoiding plastic in a UNESCO biosphere) can encourage others. Plus, storytelling raises awareness: a photo essay on a restored temple or park cleanup can show the world that these places matter.
In short, travel to endangered World Heritage sites can be transformative and educational – as long as it’s done with respect and a giving-back mindset. No one should ever try to “sneak in” to a war-damaged site, and some places (like parts of Yemen or Mali) might not be visitable at all. But many others welcome visitors who want to learn: for example, you can join guided tours of Everglades restoration projects or river clean-ups at Lake Ohrid. By being responsible tourists—researching the site’s needs, choosing conscientious operators, and perhaps even donating to a conservation charity on-site—you help make heritage protection part of the travel experience.
What is the UNESCO List of World Heritage in Danger? It is a subset of World Heritage sites flagged by UNESCO as facing serious threats to their Outstanding Universal Value. Its purpose is to “mobilize the international community” to help these sites.
How many sites are on the Danger List now (and why do sources differ)? As of late 2025, UNESCO lists 53 endangered sites. Other sources may say 56 because 3 sites were removed very recently, a reminder that the list changes over time.
How does UNESCO decide to add a site to the Danger List? The World Heritage Committee reviews evidence (from states, experts, reports) and checks it against the Convention’s criteria (imminent or potential serious threats). If the Committee finds the threats justified, it votes to inscribe the site as endangered, usually requiring the country to submit a corrective action plan.
What are the main threats that put sites in danger? They include armed conflict and war damage, climate change (floods, droughts, coral bleaching), overtourism, urban development, mining and infrastructure projects, pollution, poaching, invasive species and neglect. Many sites face a combination of these.
Which World Heritage sites are currently in danger? The full official list (53 sites) is available on UNESCO’s website. It includes, for example, Syria’s Aleppo and Palmyra, Yemen’s Old City of Sana’a, the DRC’s Virunga and Garamba parks, Afghanistan’s Bamiyan Valley, and cultural landscapes like Roșia Montană (Romania). (A region-by-region summary is given above.)
Can sites be removed from the Danger List? How? Yes. If UNESCO finds that the site’s values have been restored or threats mitigated, it can vote to remove it. For example, the 2025 removals of Madagascar, Egypt and Libya sites followed the completion of corrective projects. The Committee develops a formal plan for each removal, often requiring monitoring after delisting.
Which sites were recently added or removed from the Danger List? Recently added: 2023 saw Ukrainian sites (Kyiv’s Saint-Sophia, L’viv, Odesa) listed due to war damage. Removed: in 2025, Madagascar’s Rainforests, Egypt’s Abu Mena and Libya’s Ghadames were delisted after restoration efforts. (Over the past few years, several African parks were also removed.)
Why are Venice, Great Barrier Reef, Machu Picchu discussed but not on the Danger List? These globally famous sites face threats, but UNESCO has judged (so far) that either promised measures or existing protections address them. For instance, UNESCO deferred listing the Great Barrier Reef after Australia pledged reforms. In Venice, management of tourism has been debated but the site remains on the main list, monitored through periodic reporting. In short, just being at risk in theory doesn’t automatically trigger the Danger List – UNESCO requires clear evidence of loss of value or failure of protection measures.
What is UNESCO’s role vs that of national governments and NGOs? National governments bear ultimate responsibility for protecting their heritage under domestic law. UNESCO provides the framework, technical expertise, and funding mechanisms (e.g. World Heritage Fund, emergency funds). NGOs and IUCN/ICOMOS often supply research, conservation skills and on-the-ground project management. Ideally all three cooperate: governments implement plans, UNESCO advises and channels aid, and NGOs mobilize science and community involvement.
How does conflict (war) damage heritage sites, and what happens after conflict? Armed conflict can cause immediate destruction (shelling of buildings, arson) and indirect damage (looting of artifacts, loss of maintenance). After conflicts wind down, UNESCO can send missions to assess damage (as it did in Syria) and help plan rebuilding. The site may be on the Danger List during and after hostilities, as in Syria and Ukraine, to attract funds for stabilization. Reconstruction – if security allows – proceeds with international help. (A recent example is UNESCO’s plans to rebuild Ukraine’s national library in Kyiv damaged by war.)
How does climate change threaten World Heritage sites? Via sea-level rise (flooding coastal ruins), more intense storms (hurricanes tearing roofs off ancient churches), temperature shifts (coral bleaching on reefs), changing rainfall (droughts in forests), and more. UNESCO’s 2022 reports emphasized that climate impacts “already negatively affect 34% of all sites”. Projections show increasing risk to atolls and glaciers. Sites like Venice face rising seas, and the Galápagos face warmer waters. UNESCO committees increasingly request climate resilience plans for at-risk sites.
How does overtourism affect World Heritage sites? Excessive visitors can erode fragile structures, increase pollution, and distort local economies. The result may be narrow walking paths or limits (such as timed tickets at Chichen Itza, Mexico). While UNESCO doesn’t police tourism directly, it requires countries to manage visitor impact on heritage. Travellers have an ethical duty: we should avoid “mass tourism” traps and respect regulations (e.g. no stepping on fragile ruins). Responsible tourism can also provide revenue for maintenance, but it must be carefully managed.
How does urban development and real-estate threaten sites? Real-estate booms can encroach on heritage buffer zones. High-rise projects (in Vienna, Kyoto, etc.) can spoil historic vistas. Even in natural sites, nearby construction may divert water or wildlife. UNESCO tries to review major projects near heritage areas: states are supposed to notify the Committee of any development that might affect OUV. Local activism matters too: in several countries communities have successfully petitioned courts to stop harmful developments in protected zones.
Can a site lose its World Heritage status altogether? Yes. If a site’s OUV is irreparably lost, the Committee can delist it from both the Danger List and the World Heritage List. This happened to Dresden’s Elbe Valley (Germany) in 2009 after too many dams were built, and to Oman’s Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in 2007. Delisting is rare and seen as a last resort. Normally the Danger List is intended as an early warning to prevent permanent loss.
How can travelers visit endangered World Heritage sites ethically (do’s and don’ts)? Do your homework – learn the site’s rules and conservation issues. Hire local guides and respect all posted signs (no climbing or touching structures, for example). Stay on official paths to avoid trampling vegetation or artifacts. Minimize waste (pack out your trash) and support local economy (eat local foods, use local craftspeople) rather than imported tour chains. Do not buy looted artifacts or ivory. In conflict zones, follow official advisories – it’s often illegal or life-threatening to visit without clearance. On social media, share awareness rather than selfies; highlight conservation needs. Essentially, treat UNESCO sites as you would your own heritage: with great respect and light footprints.
How can people donate or support conservation efforts? The UNESCO World Heritage website lists several ways to contribute, including donating to the World Heritage Fund or sign petitions for emergency funding. Many heritage NGOs accept tax-deductible donations for site-specific projects. For example, the “Save Virunga” campaign raises money for park rangers, while the World Monuments Fund supports restoration at various World Heritage sites. UNESCO maintains contact info for each State Party’s UNESCO commission and for site management authorities – reaching out directly to ask how to help is often effective. We encourage giving to established conservation charities (IUCN, Global Heritage Fund, local trusts) rather than unvetted “Save the (X)” pages of dubious origin.
What restoration methods are used to save damaged heritage? It varies by case. Common methods include stabilization (e.g. propping up a crumbling wall), reconstruction (rebuilding a ruined arch using original materials, but only if documentation allows), and digital archiving (3D scanning so an exact model survives even if the real thing doesn’t). Conservation teams also undertake environmental remediation: for natural sites this might mean reintroducing native species or removing pollutants; for urban sites it could mean installing drainage or controlling invasive plants. In extreme cases, fragments of heritage are removed to museums (e.g. delicate frescoes are sometimes detached and stored) to prevent total loss. Preservation often relies on a mix of high-tech engineering and age-old craftsmanship (like rebuilding a medieval timber roof using traditional joinery).
What legal protections exist for World Heritage sites? The World Heritage Convention itself is non-binding, but most countries have ratified it and incorporated it into domestic law. For example, states often enact heritage protection laws that make it illegal to alter a World Heritage site without approval. Internationally, a World Heritage designation can bring diplomatic pressure: countries committed to the Convention are obliged to report on site conservation. Also, some World Heritage sites are protected under other treaties (e.g. Wetlands Convention, CITES for wildlife). In contested areas (e.g. Crimea’s cultural sites, Gaza’s Mosaics), UNESCO aims to remain neutral and keep protecting heritage per se, despite political disputes.
How does UNESCO monitor sites? Through the “state of conservation” (SOC) process and reactive monitoring. States Parties are asked every few years to submit SOC reports on specific sites, and advisory missions may be dispatched if needed. UNESCO publishes all SOC reports on its website. Reports can be initiated by the State Party or by UNESCO field offices or NGOs alerting UNESCO to a problem. Sites on the Danger List are monitored at every Committee session. Additionally, UNESCO issues annual summaries of heritage at risk by category (e.g. conflict, climate).
What are the most endangered natural vs cultural sites (examples)? Natural: Virunga (DRC) – world’s oldest national park, threatened by armed groups and oil; Everglades (USA) – vast wetlands recovering from drainage; Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Indonesia) – listed for logging and fires. Cultural: Staré mesto Jeruzalem (State of Palestine) – risks from unregulated building; Historic Centre of Vienna – risk from modern skyscrapers; Bamiyan Valley (Afghanistan) – site of destroyed Buddhas, now endangered by instability; Chan Chan (Peru) – fragile adobe city threatened by earthquakes and erosion.
How reliable are third-party lists/travel lists vs UNESCO’s list? Third-party travel articles (like AFAR’s or Atlas & Boots) are usually well-intentioned but can be outdated or selective. For example, some listicles wrongly include Venice or the Great Barrier Reef. They are useful for awareness but should not be taken as definitive. UNESCO’s official list is the only authoritative source. Wikipedia’s list is often a quick reference (it cites UNESCO and news) but may lag behind official changes. Always cross-check any listicle with UNESCO’s website.
How do mining, dams and extractive industries threaten sites? They can destroy habitats or subsume landscapes. We saw Roșia Montană above. Similarly, Ghana’s Kintampo waterfalls region was once under threat from a concrete dam project (eventually postponed due to heritage concerns). In Central Asia, proposals to divert rivers have endangered ancient oases and Silk Road settlements. UNESCO typically requires Environmental Impact Assessments for any such project near WH sites. If an assessment finds harm, the WH Committee can list the site as endangered as a warning.
What is the economic impact of being placed on the Danger List? It’s mixed. Negative media around “endangered” status can deter tourism, at least temporarily – e.g. visitors may skip war-torn sites. Governments sometimes fear economic fallout from a listing. On the other hand, listing can unlock extra funds for tourism management. For community-led sites, aid and grants may flow in that would not have otherwise. Overall, while status can carry a stigma, UNESCO stresses that it is not a condemnation but an opportunity for support. In many cases, eco-friendly tourism actually increases after recovery projects improve the site.
What are success stories — sites that recovered? Besides those already mentioned (Galápagos, Everglades, Atsinanana, Rio Plátano), other successes include Rio Platano (Honduras, delisted 2007) and Okapi Wildlife Reserve (DRC, which saw guerilla activity subside and was delisted around 2023). The Spanish city of Cádiz (Historic Quarter) was removed from Danger in 2019 after old houses were repaired. Lessons from success stories: strong local governance (e.g. new heritage laws), big investment in protection, and international monitoring to ensure the fixes last.
How can local communities be empowered? Often the most effective conservation includes locals. UNESCO increasingly emphasizes community stewardship. For example, UNESCO-funded projects have trained Maasai scouts in Tanzania to protect Oldonyo Lesatima (a sacred landscape) from bush encroachment. In Peru, indigenous shamans run tourism at the Chavín de Huántar site, giving them ownership of its fate. Case studies show that when residents gain from heritage (via jobs or grants) they defend it. UNESCO has programs to involve schools in heritage education, making culture a community pride.
What data and visualizations best show concentration of endangered sites? The map above is one. UNESCO also provides interactive charts on its site (e.g. breakdown by threat type, year of listing). Researchers have made dashboards (using the UNESCO API) showing time trends or vulnerability indices. Generally, a combination of maps (by country) and bar charts (by threat category) are most illuminating. We have provided references to UNESCO’s global analysis and to the 73% water risk stat as examples.
How does UNESCO define “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV)? OUV is the core UNESCO concept: it means a site is of significance so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations. The 1972 Convention’s Operational Guidelines give ten criteria for OUV (cultural i–vi, natural vii–x). A site is world heritage if it meets at least one. Importantly, a site must “meet conditions of integrity and/or authenticity and have an adequate protection and management system” to have OUV. (So if threats erode integrity, OUV itself is under danger.)
How can journalists request UNESCO data or report threats? All World Heritage data (inscriptions, committee decisions, SOC reports) are public at whc.unesco.org. Journalists can download SOC reports (PDFs) and past Committee decisions. To report new threats, UNESCO provides an email contact on each site’s page or in the SOC form. Typically, journalists pitch stories by citing the UNESCO Danger list itself as source. (For example, Reuters’ Lake Ohrid story quoted UNESCO’s 2024 report.) For unpublished data requests, contact the UNESCO World Heritage Centre press office or the secretariat in Paris with a freedom-of-information style query.
What is the history of the Danger List? The List was created in 1978 (9 years after the Convention) and the first inscribed site was the Kasbah of Algiers. Initially it had just a few entries (volcano damage, war etc.) but over time it expanded and faced criticism for being too political. The “New Visions” initiative at the 40th Committee meeting in 2016 reviewed it with fresh eyes, leading to today’s emphasis on positive outcomes. Over the decades, a total of about 55 properties have ever been on the list (with a few like Galápagos moving on and off). A notable evolution is the growing attention to climate: only in the 2010s did the Committee start systematically noting climate change in SOC decisions for natural sites.
How can governments prepare better nominations to avoid endangering sites? Before a site is inscribed on the World Heritage List, UNESCO advisory bodies (IUCN/ICOMOS) scrutinize the nomination. If a proposal shows known threats (like planned highways) that aren’t addressed, the Committee can delay inscription. Governments can avoid this by conducting thorough impact assessments and crafting management plans in advance. For sites already inscribed, the key is robust management: buffer zones, local legal protections, sustainable tourism controls. UNESCO publishes guidelines on best practices; many countries are now hiring World Heritage coordinators to integrate OUV into national planning. In short, foresight and planning can often keep a site off the Danger radar in the first place.
Francúzsko je známe pre svoje významné kultúrne dedičstvo, výnimočnú kuchyňu a atraktívnu krajinu, vďaka čomu je najnavštevovanejšou krajinou sveta. Od návštevy starých…
Zatiaľ čo mnohé z veľkolepých európskych miest zostávajú zatienené svojimi známejšími náprotivkami, je to pokladnica čarovných miest. Z umeleckej príťažlivosti…
Článok skúma najuznávanejšie duchovné miesta na svete, skúma ich historický význam, kultúrny vplyv a neodolateľnú príťažlivosť. Od starobylých budov až po úžasné…
Vo svete plnom známych turistických destinácií zostávajú niektoré neuveriteľné miesta pre väčšinu ľudí tajné a nedostupné. Pre tých, ktorí sú dostatočne dobrodružní na to, aby…
Lisabon je mesto na portugalskom pobreží, ktoré šikovne spája moderné myšlienky s pôvabom starého sveta. Lisabon je svetovým centrom pouličného umenia, hoci…
