Claudiu Silvestru, 31.07.2026

Over the past few days, the Austrian (!) headlines have read: "UNESCO streicht Wien von roter Liste” (ORF), “Wieder Welterbe: Unesco streicht Wien von der Roten Liste” (Die Presse), “Unesco streicht Wien von der roten Welterbe-Liste“ Der Standard, “Wien nicht mehr auf roter Welterbe-Warnliste” (Kronen Zeitung), “Wien von Roter Liste gestrichen: Was das für den Heumarkt bedeutet“ (Kurier).

With Vienna's removal from UNESCO's List of World Heritage in Danger, the highly contentious development project in a historic urban setting enters a new phase. Over the past nine years, in the run-up to the World Heritage Committee's decision on 27 July in Busan – as well as during the Committee's session itself – the debate was conducted on both technical and political grounds. The upcoming environmental impact assessment procedure will probably continue in the same spirit. Yet one aspect is being lost along the way: the connection between cultural heritage and its heirs.

National and international legal frameworks, such as national monument protection laws or the World Heritage Convention, are tools designed to protect valuable assets. The justification for protecting cultural heritage, however, lies in the public interest in preserving these assets. In Austrian monument protection, this is the interest of the Austrian public; within UNESCO's World Heritage system, it is the interest of humanity as a whole. Let us refer to them as the “heirs” of cultural heritage. Public authorities as well as political institutions act as “trustees” of the public interest and rely, among other things, on expert knowledge in order to make informed decisions and act on behalf of those heirs.

Democratic systems are based on the assumption that the holders of public interests are capable of independent and reasoned judgement. This creates an obligation for their “trustees” that goes beyond making decisions on the protection of heritage. They owe the heirs an accessible and comprehensible justification for their actions. Not through political polemics or polarised media debates. Not through technical jargon and reports that are virtually impossible to grasp. Rather, through an understandable explanation of how decisions affect the heritage asset protected in the public interest.

The World Heritage system does not suffer from a lack of communication and public engagement. Quite the opposite. Visitor centres, exhibitions, educational programmes and a wide range of dissemination formats explain to the public why a World Heritage property deserves protection and what constitutes its Outstanding Universal Value. Yet when changes to World Heritage sites are at stake, the discussion quietly shifts into the mass media, transforming the interpretation of heritage into a polarised debate about its future. 

If a project is expected to affect the Outstanding Universal Value of a World Heritage property, it must become understandable how and why such an impact would occur. What consequences are feared? Does the project enrich the heritage, preserve its value, or diminish it? Why do experts reach different conclusions, and how do these conclusions affect the public interest in heritage?

This is not about turning every citizen into a conservation professional or a UNESCO expert. It is about enabling the public to assess the actions of those who act as “trustees” on its behalf.

It is precisely here that the debate surrounding Vienna raises doubts. For years, political positions, media simplifications and expert reports dominated the discussion. The public was presented primarily with easily digestible slogans – such as “the building is too tall” or “the Canaletto view is being compromised” – and with conclusions, such as Vienna's inscription, continued presence on, or removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger. On this basis, citizens were expected to choose between competing narratives without being able to assess the actual consequences for the heritage asset itself.

With the decision to remove the “Historic Centre of Vienna” from the List of World Heritage in Danger, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee – as the decision-making body – the Republic of Austria – as a State Party to the World Heritage Convention – and the City of Vienna – as the manager of the World Heritage property – now have a responsibility to communicate to the heirs. Precisely because the decision departs from the assessments of numerous heritage experts, there is a special obligation to explain, in an understandable way, the reasons behind this decision and above all its possible consequences for the protected heritage asset. Not in order to generate approval, but to enable understanding and democratic participation in one's own heritage.