projects that attempt to assess the role of organizations within the system. The reports of the Bulgarian World Heritage Sites in combination with the perceived insufficient support from the Advisory Bodies of cultural sites, further display an urgent need for detailed evaluations of such organizations within the World Heritage System. Furthermore, a conversation within the World Heritage System is needed to address the primary role of the Advisory Bodies. Financial support in particular should be discussed. To be more exact, serious consideration is needed on the question of whether Advisory Bodies should focus more on the evaluation of new nominations and assisting the counties looking to inscribe new sites, or should they focus their efforts on the support of existing sites and ensuring their protection and conservation for future generations?
Conclusion The analysis of governance structures and processes within the periodic reporting system for World Heritage Sites has shown various aspects that can be utilized to understand the interaction and role of different governance levels and entities within the World Heritage System. In addition, it provided an overview of the reporting structure and inclusion of governancerelated aspects. The case study of the Bulgarian World Heritage Sites has also shown that governance indicators within the reporting system cannot be used as a determinant for the overall situation at different sites. In other words, a good governance system does not automatically result in a positive standing at a site, and a low-scoring governance system does not inevitably reflect an overall negative standing at a site.
Pirin National Park. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fish_ Banderishko_lake,_Pirin_National_Park_11.JPG
natural sites (Pirin National Park and Srebarna Nature Reserve) perceived the cooperation with their Advisory Body (IUCN) to be very good as well. This is in clear contrast to the cultural sites. Not one of the seven cultural sites gave their Advisory Bodies (ICOMOS and ICCROM) a good review for their support in the preparation of the periodic reports. To the contrary, all sites ranked the support as poor or fair or did not even give any grade, while providing UNESCO with a very good review. While there are no direct reasons given in the reports that would explain these differences, several scholars have highlighted the differences between the Advisory Bodies and their work. One such significant difference is the fundamental financial gap that exists between IUCN and the cultural Advisory Bodies, in particular ICOMOS.9 Paired with the current distribution of sites on the World Heritage List,10 it is apparent that the cultural Advisory Bodies are stretched very thin in terms of their financial and personnel capabilities to offer satisfactory support to sites in their periodic report preparations. This is further enhanced by the fact that the funding for post-inscription measures such as monitoring missions only accounted for 20% of the World Heritage Fund in 2014, while 80% was spent on pre-inscription evaluation of potential future World Heritage Sites.11 Hence, the lack of support for sites after they have been inscribed should not simply be attributed to the Advisory Bodies, but must include considerations of how these organizations themselves are being enabled to carry out their missions by the World Heritage Committee. Additional aspects, such as the different understandings of heritage and diverging approaches to supporting sites12 are more difficult to pinpoint as they vary drastically between countries, organizations, and interest groups. Each of these parties involved in the World Heritage System can have its own understandings or interpretations of strategies or heritage elements. As a result, an in-depth examination of such different understandings from the involved entities is required for future research
This initial analysis has shown that there are noteworthy differences between the protection and governance efforts at cultural and natural sites. Not only do natural sites appear to receive more support from their respective Advisory Bodies, they also face more severe pressures from areas which are not directly related to any level of governance such as environmental impacts and human development. Further analyses in this area would be necessary, however, to assess the differences more conclusively and on a larger scale. Furthermore, the lack of questions within the reports regarding recommendations of the Advisory Bodies gives credence to the notion that there is an existing gap between the sites and international organizations which oversee them. Additionally, this analysis indicates a rather hierarchical structure within the Bulgarian World Heritage System, which does not facilitate cooperation between sites and involved organizations, but instead focuses attention on the stringent authority of national ministries. The apparent lack of communication between sites and the inclusion of surrounding communities in protective and managerial efforts are the most prevalent areas that could be improved upon. Nevertheless, while there are areas on the national as well as regional and site-based levels that could be developed and improved, the reports indicate that the overall situation at the Bulgarian World Heritage Sites appears sufficient to ensure the sites’ protection and conservation for future generations.
6