World Heritage Site

Nan told me we need more icons alerting to WHS with specific Visiting Conditions. Dodging his request for ‘WHS with biosafety hazards’, I have settled for ‘Do Not Travel: WHS in the Red Zone of travel advisory systems’. Most Western countries apply such a system, supported by a public website, that advises their citizens about travel to foreign countries. These advices include up-to-date visa, customs and health information (usually more reliable than what you’d find in private sources). Still, they are mostly known for their overall advice often given in Red, Orange, Yellow and Green. Red means “Do not Travel”.

Pros and cons of the travel advisory systems

While many experienced travellers take this advice with a pinch of salt, others are more cautious and like to be aware of the specific risks involved in travelling to a certain country. A contributing factor is that most general travel and health insurance companies use the system to determine whether your insurance is valid in the country/region.

Criticisms of these advisories in general include:

1. The application of double standards to "friendly" countries (debris from missiles flying overhead is an issue for Iraq and Iran, but apparently not for Jordan, which lies on the same flyway).
2. Outdated / bearing a grudge for decades (a single incident in 2014 will be in a warning text forever).
3. Not being specific within a country (often whole countries are struck out, while on the ground parts of it are significantly safer than others).

To compile the connection, I have used the travel advisories of Germany and Australia. When both issue a Do Not Travel warning, I have included the WHS. The choice of Germany and Australia may seem arbitrary, but they both have an extensive system in place, are on the strict side (more so than NL or UK for example), and their citizens are less specifically targeted abroad than those of the USA, UK and France so they might offer a more general perspective. I have also had a look at a non-Western advisory, that of India, but it is too limited for our purposes.

The German system does not use colour coding and has no maps. It uses the term “wird gewarnt” instead to indicate the highest level of warnings. But its descriptions of the risks and the areas involved are very specific. For both the Australian and German systems, I think it would be better if they’d explicitly name tourist sights (such as Lalibela) instead of referring only to provinces or geographic features (“North of the Benue river”).

Fully off-limits countries

The following countries, including all of their WHS, have been earmarked “Do not Travel” and are thus fully off-limits:

• Afghanistan
• Belarus
• Central African Republic
• DRC
• Haiti
• Iran
• Libya
• Mali
• Myanmar (photo 1 shows Bagan)
• Niger
• Palestine
• Sudan
• Syria
• Ukraine 
• Yemen

Together, they represent 81 WHS (6.6% of the total).

WHS in affected areas

In addition, the following WHS lie in parts of countries marked as “Do not Travel”:

• Algeria: Tassili N’Ajjer (border area with Libya)
• Benin: W-Arli-Pendjari Complex
• Burkina Faso: all WHS (Germany "allows" you to travel to the big cities)
• Cameroon: Sangha Trinational, as it is in the border region with the C.A.R.
• Chad: all WHS (Germany "allows" you to travel in the south)
• Cote d'Ivoire: Comoé NP
• Ethiopia: Lalibela, Fasil Ghebbi, Bale Mountains, Aksum, Simien NP (less clear in the German advice, but implied)
• Iraq: all but Erbil Citadel (photo 2 shows the Welcome to Samarra)
• Lebanon: Baalbek, Anjar, Tyre
• Nigeria: Sukur (not clear in German but implied)
• Pakistan: Takht-i-Bahi (all in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province)

This brings the total up to 103 WHS (8.4%).

Differences in severity

I found several differences between the Australian and German recommendations. In all cases, Australia was stricter / less precise. This includes:

• Benin: Koutammakou (North Benin starts already at the city of Natitingou, according to Australia)
• Colombia: Los Katios (Australia warns against both sides of the Darien Gap)
• Cote d'Ivoire: Sudanese style mosques (Germany only warns against the Northeast, Australia has the Northwest as well)
• DPRK: Australia bans all of the DPRK, Germany does not
• Iraq: Erbil (Australia advises against travel to Iraq Kurdistan as a whole) 
• Lebanon: Australia warns against all, Germany only far south and east (Tyre, Baalbek, Anjar)
• Mauritania: Australia avoids the Ksour of Chinguetti, Ouadane (photo 3), etc, while Germany draws the line further northeast
• Panama: Darien NP (Australia warns against both sides of the Darien Gap)
• Russia: Australia bans all Russia, Germany does not
• Venezuela: Australia bans all Venezuela; Germany does not

Does your country have a travel advisory system, and do you see significant different conclusions from those above?