Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x

The Forth Bridge

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Factors affecting the property in 2017*
  • Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Threats identified at the time of inscription of the property in 2015:
  • Need to create key indicators that are more specific and relate more to the attributes
  • Need to extending the Property Management Plan to include an interpretation and tourism plan
  • Need to select key viewsheds and views of the bridge for inclusion in the appropriate planning instruments and management plan
  • Proposed visitor centre
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2017
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2017**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2017

On 29 November 2017, the State Party submitted a report, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1485/documents/, addressing the Committee’s concerns raised at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015), at the time of inscription of the property. The report provides information on the selection of key viewsheds and views of the bridge for inclusion in the appropriate planning instruments and management plan, together with a brief summary of other advancements relating to the management of the property.

The protection policy (the “de facto buffer zone”) utilizes the existing range of natural and cultural designations and planning systems that protect the immediate setting of the Bridge. As requested by the Committee, a limited number (10) of key views and viewsheds within its wider setting were defined. The management of these key views and viewsheds via the appropriate planning instruments will allow for the assessment of their effectiveness in the on-going protection of the property. If a development is proposed within any of these 10 view cones, additional scrutiny by the appropriate planning authority will be triggered to ensure that it will not harm the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), through, inter alia, the request for a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA).

The current technical management and conservation issues of the bridge are unchanged since the inscription of the property. Nothing has damaged the OUV of the property, which is still being maintained by its owner, Network Rail.

The main developments relate to the property’s management, following the Committee’s recommendations:

  • The Forth Bridge World Heritage Management Group has been established;
  • A Forth Bridges Tourism Project Group has also been formed, its aims include the development of a Tourism Strategy, and support for the development of a common signage strategy;
  • A Forth Bridges Communications Group has also been established.

During the last year, the Scottish Government agency, Transport Scotland, has invested in the creation of an accurate and detailed baseline record of the Forth Bridge. This was achieved by the Centre for Digital Documentation and Visualisation (CDDV) through 3D Digital Recording, using laser scanning.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2017

The improvement of the protection policy by the determination of 10 key views of the property and associated protected view-cones is noted. The detailed analysis and justification of how the key views and viewsheds were identified can be used as a baseline and should allow for assessing the efficiency of the key views and viewsheds in the management of the property and further adapting them if necessary.

In addition, the progress relating to management is noted, including the establishment of the Forth Bridge World Heritage Management Group for the property and of specialized commissions for tourism and communication. This is an improvement of the management mechanism by reaching out to local communities, addressing sustainable economic strategies for tourism, and should positively reinforce the management system. The recommendations of the Committee at the time of the inscription of the property are recalled however, in particular with regards to identifying key monitoring indicators relating to the attributes that convey the property’s OUV, the extension of the property’s management plan to include an interpretation and tourism plan, and the submission of the plans for any proposed visitor centre to the World Heritage Centre for review.

It is recommended that the Committee reiterate these recommendations to the State Party in order to request the State Party to submit an updated report on the state of conservation, and an update of the management tools and mechanism detailed above.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2017
41 COM 7B.57
The Forth Bridge (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (C 1485)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/17/41.COM/7B,
  2. Recalling Decision 39 COM 8B.33, adopted at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015),
  3. Welcomes the progress made by the State Party in responding to the World Heritage Committee’s recommendations, especially:
    1. The improvement of the protection policy by means of the identification of 10 key views of the property and associated protected view-cones,
    2. The reinforcement of the management system by the creation of the Forth Bridge World Heritage Management Group and specialized commissions for tourism development and communication;
  4. Reiterates its previous recommendations to the State Party to consider the following:
    1. Creating key monitoring indicators that are more specific and relate more directly to the attributes that convey Outstanding Universal Value,
    2. Extending the Management Plan of the property to include an interpretation and tourism plan,
    3. Submitting plans for any proposed visitor centre at the earliest possibility to the World Heritage Centre for review, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;
  5. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2018, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above.
Draft Decision: 41 COM 7B.57

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/17/41.COM/7B,
  2. Recalling Decision 39 COM 8B.33, adopted at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015),
  3. Welcomes the progress made by the State Party in responding to the World Heritage Committee’s recommendations, especially:
    1. The improvement of the protection policy by means of the identification of 10 key views of the property and associated protected view-cones,
    2. The reinforcement of the management system by the creation of the Forth Bridge World Heritage Management Group and specialized commissions for tourism development and communication;
  4. Reiterates its previous recommendations to the State Party to consider the following:
    1. Creating key monitoring indicators that are more specific and relate more directly to the attributes that convey Outstanding Universal Value,
    2. Extending the Management Plan of the property to include an interpretation and tourism plan,
    3. Submitting plans for any proposed visitor centre at the earliest possibility to the World Heritage Centre for review, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;
  5. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2018, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above.
Report year: 2017
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date of Inscription: 2015
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(iv)
Documents examined by the Committee
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2016) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 41COM (2017)
Exports

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.


top