This year, Germany's success rate for new entries in the list of world cultural heritage is one hundred percent. Two national and three transnational proposals found the grace of the responsible UNESCO committee. A reason to celebrate for all those who have committed themselves over many years. And at first glance for anyone interested: Germany is now represented with 51 World Heritage sites, 48 of which are cultural and three natural. This has shrunk the gap to the only state that has more ennobled sights of cultural heritage to offer on a global scale (Italy), and at the same time the lead over the rest of the field has grown.
Which is why there are a few uncomfortable questions to ask. First to UNESCO. More than 25 years ago, the UN organization set the goal of reducing the overrepresentation of sites in Europe compared to the rest of the world. In practice, however, this proves to be difficult; The monument protection apparatus of the European states routinely provide those documents that convince appraisers. Here one has also smoothly responded to the request of UNESCO to only propose examples of those building types and epochs that have so far hardly been represented. Instead of nominating another cathedral or an old town, Germany, for example, sent the Fagus factory by Walter Gropius and Adolf Meyer into the race in 2011 and won.
The downside of success is becoming increasingly clear: In this country, world heritage inflation can be observed. UNESCO originally set the bar very high with the criterion of “exceptional universal value”. Everyone should understand that Aachen Cathedral can be on a list with the Great Wall of China and the Giza pyramids. But does this also apply to Bad Ems and the last, barely visible section of the Roman Limes? The more frequently the popular badge of rank is awarded to Germany, the more it loses its informative value. This does not harm the title winners so much, but above all the many great sites that, for whatever reason, do not belong to the illustrious circle. Downgraded in such a waythey lose their importance for certain visitor groups and as a result also for politics, which has to distribute funds. The intention to raise awareness of cultural heritage threatens to turn into its opposite.
The advisory board that advises the Standing Conference on the updating of the German tentative list has long recognized the danger that lies in the emergence of a two-class society of super monuments and the rest of them. As early as 2014, he recommended that politicians keep the number of sites, which was 38 at the time, as low as possible. The advice was not followed; on the contrary, more and more applicants are pushing for title honors. In the meantime, there are absurd proposals such as Peenemünde. The prospect of attracting more visitors with the coveted label is too tempting. The fact that the sites' results are mixed in this respect - the Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe in Kassel, for example, benefited, but the Upper Middle Rhine Valley did not - hardly plays a role.
An important factor for the ongoing run for the World Heritage title is the institutionalization of the associated bureaucracy. There have long been separate departments in state ministries and state monument offices around which an advisory scene has developed; everyone involved has an interest in keeping the application machinery running, which is what makes them livelihood. It must now be recognized that the effort required to apply for inclusion in the tentative list at least benefits the regional awareness of a monument and possibly also its maintenance, even in the event of failure. The damage to the social appreciation of monuments as a whole is, however, to be rated higher. Germany would be well advisedif it did not name any new candidates for the time being and instead made its heritage conservation know-how available to countries that have a lot of catching up to do.