♪ >> the headlines on al jazeera -- heavy monsoons have triggered floods and landslides west of india, killing at least 100 people. at least 30 people are still missing. >> i had three vehicles. all of them got submerged in floodwater. they are all damaged. the furnisher inside my house and outside also got damaged. i've suffered a loss of around $10,000. >> the floodwaters roast between five and seven meters,. -- rose between five and seven

meters. >> turkish defense ministry searching for survivors after a boat carrying 45 migrants sunk. the boat sank two hundred 60 kilometers off the coast of the holiday resort town. turkey is hosting 3.7 million refugees. most of them syrian. most try to reach turkey on overcrowded boats. violent protest erupted just outside the compound in haiti with a funeral of assassinated president moise taking place. despite threats from climate change and poor water quality, australia's great barrier reef will not be classified as an endangered world heritage site. greenpeace condemned the move. the tele-been warned there will be no peace in afghanistan until a new government is formed. a spokesman said the group will not still fighting -- stop fighting until the president is removed. the u.s.'s most senior general

said the group now controls half of afghanistan's district. u.s. secretary of state has met iraq's foreign minister in washington, d.c. topping the agenda is the potential of combat troops' withdrawal by the end of the year. the tokyo olympics finally opens for the loki ceremony. osaka lit the olympic cauldron. japan is experiencing a new wave of the pandemic. the news continues here on al jazeera after "inside story." ♪

mohammed: there's anger in liverpool, after the english city lost its coveted unesco world heritage status. the u.n. body is meeting in china to decide what sites should be added or removed from its list, but what are the criteria, and is politics involved? this is "inside story." ♪ hello, and welcome to the program. i'm mohammed jamjoom. in a huge setback for liverpool, the united nations' cultural body, unesco, has stripped the english city of its world heritage status. the decision came after concerns about development in the city, particularly along liverpool's waterfront. being put on unesco's world heritage list often leads to huge financial rewards through investments and tourism, but losing it could also have the opposite effect.

the heritage list includes globally recognizable sites, including egypt's pyramids and the great wall of china. unesco's committee meeting in china this year is csidering 17 other cultural and natural sites to add to its list this year. neve barker has action from liverpool after esco's decision. reporter: it is the city that kept the british empire afloat. its 19th century edifice is a testament to generations of global trade and commerce, a time when britain ruled the waves. for 17 years, liverpool's iconic waterfront stood alongside india's taj mahal and the great wall of china on the united nations' world heritage list. but modernity brought changes that aren't to everyone's liking. in a recent meeting in china, unesco said new developments had ruined the city's historic skyline, destroying liverpool's heritage value. the city is one of only three to be stripped of its heritage status in the past.

50 years. >> the waterfront and the 12 [indiscernible], they have been inscribed because they reflect the history of a major world trading city port from the 17th and 18th century. so filling the dock, for example, or building a high building, totally changes the way it is perceived. the way this history is perceived. reporter: this $7.5 billion waterfront project has been cited as a cause for concern. so, too, has the plan to build everton football club's new riverside stadium, viewed by some as an act of cultural vandalism. and this is the huge area of land that's been earmarked for development. liverpool city leaders say that it is incomprehensible why unesco would want this semi-derelict dock shut off from the rest of the city to remain a

wasteland forever more. many in liverpool feel the city's being forced to make a binary choice between preserving its heritage status and reviving and developing deprived and derelict parts of the city. >> unesco want this place to just stay as a post-industrial ghost town. we can't allow that to happen, as a city. the area that this dock is within is in kirkdale ward, which is one of the most deprived wards not only within liverpool, but in the entire country. ♪ >> ♪ come together right now over me ♪ reporter: there is, of course, much more to liverpool than its unesco status to continue attracting tourists. >> can i point to the economic value from having that status over the last 17 years, very little. do i think we will lose investment or visitors because of losing the plaque? no.

will we be a world heritage site ? -- a world heritage site? no. will it be a world-class heritage city? yes. reporter: losing unesco status is undeniably a cultural blow for this historic city. liverpool will no longer be a poster child for preservationists, but this is a living city that's undergoing massive changes to transform some of the most deprived parts of the country, creating tensions between liverpool's historic past and its potential future. al jazeera, liverpool. mohammed: all right, let's have a look at some of the sites being considered for unesco's world heritage list. of the 17 up for consideration, nine are in europe, including the italian city of bologna, which wants its famous porticos recognized. two are from south america, including the chenchoro mummies in chile. they were buried 2,000 years before egypt's mummies in chile

once not known. but some locations already on the list risk being downgraded. environmentalists are supporting a bid to put australia's great barrier reef on the danger list because of climate change, while ethiopia's 11th and 12th century rock-hewn churches at la libella are in need of urgent restoration. ♪ let's bring in our guests. in liverpool, trevor skempton is member of the merseyside civic society, and also of liverpool's world heritage steering group. in doha, amr al-azm, professor of history and anthropology at shawnee state university. and also in liverpool, michael parkinson, honorary professor at the university of liverpool and ambassador of the heseltine institute for public policy, practice, and place. a warm welcome to you all, and thanks for joining us on "inside story" today. trevor, let me start with you today. were you surprised at all by this decision by unesco to remove manchester from its world

heritage lists? and also, can liverpool appeal this decision, or is it final? trevor: right, the first thing is, it's been coming for a while. so we weren't surprised, but we were a bit shocked that there'd been no real listening to the points that liverpool had made. i mean, i'm a member of the merseyside civic society, and i was an adviser to the city at the time that it got world heritage status. when that document was produced, in 2004, it was based on the 17th, 18th, and 19th century history of the city, and it was closely argued around a lot of detail. in the subsequent years, people have looked at the so-called buffer zone, which is the entire

city center, and started worrying about the skyline. the skyline of the city. now, this liverpool skyline, is a 20th century skyline. it was the first european city to build american style skyscrapers, the liver building being the most famous. and the liver building was the tallest office building in europe for 20 years. this isn't ancient history, this is the ongoing development of the city. the liver building was actually built in a former dock, and liverpool's development as a living city has carefully been -- has been very carefully recorded and noted. it's an ongoing process. i represent the merseyside civic society, we are very proud of the heritage, and i don't think any city has spent more money and time on looking after its heritage than liverpool has.

so it comes as a shock, but it wasn't a surprise. we knew -- we sort of saw it coming. mohammed: michael, you wrote in a piece that liverpool has been treated unfairly, in relation to other world heritage cities, and its unique urban history of development has not been recognized. how, in your opinion, has liverpool been trereated unfairy compared to other heritage cities? michael: well, the most obvious example is london, which has got world heritage status, or along the tower bridge, and it's surrounded by some biggest -- by some of the biggest skyscrapers in the world. but because it's in london, unesco have taken a very different line. they said 15 years ago they were worried and have done nothing about it. so that's one very clear difference in the united kingdom. the second thing is, you know, most of unesco's sites are either monuments or natural sites. they're not very good at dealing with cities.

and cities, and liverpool particularly, is not a museum. it develops and changes. it has to. it grows. and its heritage changes. and so, unesco almost has difficulty deciding what is right and what is wrong. it throughout dresden, in 2007, because they had to put a new bridge. so unesco is not very good on this. but the really key point on all this is, and it keeps getting missed, this is not a discussion of, do you like this building or that building, or the other building? the advisors to unesco said liverpool had already damaged irretrievably the outstanding universal value of the site. that is simply not true. 10 years ago, the city was going

to build, lots of high-rise blocks, not one has been built actually in the site, there's a low-rise building built, and if you saw the movie that your colleague made yesterday, i appeared in, the site is derelict has been derailed for 50 years. so unesco could say we're worried that you might damage the site, but they can't say you already have. so as a matter of fact, they are wrong. on the other issue, which is the evident football stadium, they've said if you fill in the dock, you've lost the outstanding universal value. well, i can tell you, your movie showed the pier head and the three graces, they all stand on an infill dock. liverpool historically has always filled in docks. that is part of our heritage. in addition, everton, who are going to build, i think, a very fine stadium in a really unattractive part of the area,

are putting 10% of their $500 million investment to invest in two major heritage assets. we're at risk of falling down. so the third point -- mohammed: michael, i'm sorry, i'm sorry to interrupt you. let me get back to that third point you're making in just a moment. we're talking a lot about the, you know, the processes that are involved in a site being selected as a world heritage site. what is that process like for obtaining unesco world heritage status? who initiates it? is it a very lengthy process? and do politics play a role in it as well? amr: i would say all three is probably the answer. it's a lengthy problem.

there are 10 criteria. it used to be i think four or six, before, it used to be six actually, for a cultural heritage site, and then it was increased, unified to ten criteria, whether it's a natural site or a cultural heritage site. and obviously, often, the city itself will try to promote itself, or promote a certain aspect or area that it wants to include or wants to have added. they will work with the unesco committee, to make sure that it meets the criteria. but, you know, looking at liverpool's situation, i mean, i sympathize very much with what your two guests are saying. and i understand -- i know, i have visited liverpool, and i'm a liverpool football supporter, so, you know, kind of what i think is that, it's because of everton, but anyway, sort of on a more serious note here, the point is,

this -- in a way it's almost unfortunate that what ended up being the centerpiece of why liverpool got that designation in 2004 was the very docks themselves, and the waterfront. obviously, it's not just docks. it's the docks past the waterfront. and that part is really very much, as your guests said, are in need of regeneration, are in need -- you know, this is a living, vibrant, changing, evolving, growing city, and it's a real challenge for cities like liverpool, and like dresden, and elsewhere, to kind of hold that balance. and perhaps the bigger question should be, should cities, you know, put themselves in that position? are they better off maybe not having to carry that burden? at least not in terms of, you know, an area like that, you know, like the dock areas, and

say, okay, i'm to build my heritage status on that, and then find themselves, you know, a few years down the road, that they're unable to keep to that promise. i mean, it's a difficult issue for them, but i totally sympathize. mohammed: trevor, a few moments ago, michael, in his answer started to talk about the new everton stadium that's being planned. you know, unesco has said that it was not consistently consulted on changes to construction plans within that area of manchester, and they went on to say that these developments, including that planned stadium, resulted in serious deterioration of the historic site. what's your reaction to that? trevor: well, there is there is a small area of controversy, and that is that some of the water in bramley moore dock is removed. now, they are spending a lot of money to make sure that all the

decisions on the building of the stadium are technically reversible. so if you wanted to put the site back to its present situation, that will be possible. the bits of the dock that are going to be under the stadium are being preserved before the stadium is built, so that they could be technically reconstructed in the future. the main thing is that everton have liaised very closely with historic advisors, including historic england. a painstaking process. they put probably -- 50 million out of the 500 million costs of the stadium is directly related, as michael said before, to conservation matters. everton see a benefit for themselves in having conservation credibility. they're opening the site and the riverside to the public for the first time ever. it's a massive gain for the city, and they've bent over

backwards, including lowering the height of the stadium, so it's no higher than the nearby tobacco warehouse. still quite high. they've jumped through every hoop you can imagine, but unfortunately, ikamos and unesco have turned a deaf ear to this. the stadium hasn't even started work on-site yet. it's due to start. they've jumped the gun. they hadn't really listened. and if they looked at the mountain of documents that everton have provided, they are short of money, they've been prepared to provide the money, not just for the new stadium, for 53,000 fans, in the first phase, but also for massive conservation work, which wouldn't be done otherwise. it's all part of a -- it's all part of the same story. you develop, you conserve, and in a city which has to go on living, you have to combine the two.

there's no other way. and you asked at the beginning whether there's scope for appeal. there's no scope for liverpool to appeal, because unesco are facing in the completely wrong direction on this. they're not -- they've not listened to us. they last visited the city, in 2011 -- i was there -- they'd already decided then that this wasn't the sort of world heritage site that they really wanted. so i think liverpool's days were numbered at the beginning. but if you come to liverpool now, and you compare it with liverpool in 2004, the whole world heritage site, which includes six areas of which the docks, north docks are only one, the improvement is incomparable, including for the most rigorous of conservation people,

would look buildings like saint george's hall, like the albert dock. mohammed: trevor, i'm sorry to interrupt you. we are just starting to run out of time. i will get back to you on one of those points you were making. michael, let me go to you. trevor was talking about, you know, essentially how this is a a very delicate balance, when you're talking about a living city, wherein lies a world heritage site. let me ask you, from your vantage point, how do you go about achieving this delicate balance of preserving the past, but also planning for the future? i mean, how should cities be able to celebrate and preserve their histories, while also being able to rebuild so they can prosper going forward? michael: okay, several points. i'll speak quickly, i don't want to waste your time. heritage is not about buildings, it's also about culture and values. and so, you build upon those. that's part of our heritage. we weren't designated for the buildings. it was because we were the center of the british empire, and an innovative city in the 18th, 19th century. so it's about values as much as

buildings. that said, in terms of buildings, come to liverpool. there is a massive dock warehouse that was renovated 20 years ago, utterly brilliant. a huge tourist attraction, got a museum and gallery in it. that's the albert dock at the stanley docker, in the north dockside, a huge investment in a wonderful hotel, an apartment block. what you do is quality. unesco is daft to worry about height. it's quality. and what the city needs to do is carry its people with it. everton consults a city of a thousand people and 95% wanted -- so consult your people be true to your values be authentic do quality work. and whether it is old or new, or small or high, that becomes a matter of taste and preference, and i like a mix. unesco, frankly, are far too rigid on this. and going back to your colleague in doha, i absolutely agree. frankly, we didn't want to lose

this status, but now, we are relieved. it has become a huge burden, dealing with unesco. the transaction costs are too high, and frankly, the city cannot go on year after year being in the public headlines. because it fails to meet some unreasonable standards. they said three years ago, you must build nothing in the city, until we approve your plans. that is unsustainable. it's also illegal. there we go. that's my point on all of this. mohammed: amr, you heard michael there talk about the cost of all of this, when it comes to having a world heritage, site maintaining it. -- when it comes to having a world heritage site, maintaining it. let me ask you, how costly is it? who is ultimately responsible for it? does unesco play a role in this, or is it more the country, where the site is, or is it a combination of both? amr: ultimately, it's the country.

i mean, it's the state, because remember, unesco is a club of member states, so each state is responsible for its own sites. now, unesco might have funds it may -- or expertise, or resources that it can sometimes push towards some of these sites and some of the member states to help them maintain the sites. but by and large, it's the responsibility of the member state itself to ensure that its sites are kept in good order, preserved in the appropriate manner, and kept into the -- kept to the standards required, especially if they are under the unesco world heritage sort of designation. and that's how it's always been. in terms of the cost, yes, obviously, it can be, especially again, going back to the point, you know, urban areas, urban centers, and big, major urban centers, like liverpool, like london, like manchester, and

anywhere else in the world, rome, italy, you know, paris, new york, et cetera -- these are very complex and difficult places to maintain, and they require huge resources. so it's a fair question to ask, as well, and say, you know, is it -- you know, it's a cost-benefit analysis at the end of the day. and to look at which parts you want to preserve and which parts you might think it's not necessarily, you know, it's more important to develop them. and something like the docks, well, you know, it's up to the people of liverpool, perhaps, to make that decision. we're not talking about the pyramids. we're not talking about palmyra and the temple of bell. we're not talking about machu picchu. we're talking about, you know, 18th, 19th century, 20th century docks. so, i don't know, for me, it's a pity that liverpool are going to lose that. but i can also see the point

that your guests were making, as well. mohammed: right, trevor, are you concerned that liverpool is going to be losing investment or visitors because of losing the world heritage status? trevor: no. i don't think that'll happen. i think, as has already been said, liverpool is regenerating itself. it was in a very dark place 20, 30 years ago. the city was a shrinking city. it was regarded as a basket case. but it has come back with a vengeance. and that in the middle of that renaissance in liverpool is conservation of its history, that's why this is such a ridiculous thing to have happened. but it's not important, in terms of the label of world heritage site. it's regrettable, as it's gone, but it's not going to make much of a difference. can i just make one more point, related to what michael said about london?

london made an important decision, when the tower of london and the palace of westminster were declared world heritage sites. london refused to accept buffer zones around them. liverpool's problems have come because of a very wide buffer zone. that's where all these all the -- that's where all these tall buildings are. nobody's ever proposed at all building within the world heritage site itself. so if we go back to the original document, we'll remove the word "unesco" from it completely, but we'll proceed on the basis of looking after the heritage in the best way we possibly can, and new developments will provide some of the finance and the wherewithal to do that. mohammed: all right, well, we have run out of time. so we're going to have to leave the conversation here. thank you so much to all of our guests, trevor skempton, amr al-azm, and michael parkinson. and thank you, too, for watching. you can see the program again anytime by visiting our website, aljazeera.com. and for further discussion, go to our facebook page.

that's facebook.com/ajinsidestory. you can also join the conversation on twitter. our handle is @ajinsidestory. from me, mohammed jamjoom, and the whole team here, bye for now. ♪ ç?ç?ç?ç?o■o■ñ■ç■ç■ç■■oñ [captiont

television] ♪ ♪ >> i