I'd like to think that the U.S.'s participation in this project helps draw international attention and support to other global sites imperiled by regional economic and political uncertainties.  Nice story to include for a New Year's Day issue of the Traveler.

I'd like to think that money could be far better spent in our parks rather than being wasted on bureaucrats and useless reports. 

If I recall correctly, the US stopped contributing to UNESCO in 2011.

Agreed.  If the reports are useful and the money not wasted on bureaucrats, it's money well spent on the project.

Thats what the funding reports indicate but as demonstrated in an earlier NPT article, the units are still preparing the "required" reports and otherwise meeting the criteria to be listed. 

Ummmm..EC, once again, you should EDUCATE yourself, before you speak about anything related to this topic.  These standards are directly related to the parks management in creating healthy ecosystems within the boundary, AND creating positive experiences for their visitors..  If Yellowstone's streams are heavily polluted, do you think it would be world recongnized for angling, and people would set out to fish the streams?  These are nothing more guidelines.  Our national parks are one of the few places that healthy ecosystems can be studied.  Do you not think that matters?  Probably not.  But National Parks are more than just a place for scenic views.  They are scientific study areas as well that help the human race learn about the natural world, and our planet.  I get it that you drink the tainted tea, and haven't a clue.. .but come on.  Less ignorance, please.

I am a bit surprised to see the negative comments about the US's contributions to the World Heritage Convention.  Wherever I have travelled outside the US, the people in those countries are immensely proud of their World Heritage Sites.  They see them as belonging to the people of the world, not just to the people of that country.  We should likewise be proud of our sites.  I worked in 4 World Heritage Sites, all national parks, in this country.  The amount of money we spent on what ec calls the criteria of the convention was miniscule.  The report required from Yelloiwstone comes from the fact that it was placed on UNESCO's danger list due to mining activities proposed outside, if I remember correctly, the Northeast entrance.  Of course, those who do not believe that entities such as UNESCO should have any influence in the US will oppose any US listing on the World Heritage convention.

The Paris office of the World Heritage convention does offer technical and a little bit of financial assistance to World Heritage sites in less developed nations.  I don't believe the US has ever asked for, or needed, such assistance. 

Some years ago, I wrote a World Heritage nomination for a site in a South American country.  The people from the country with whom I was working were proud that a site in their country would be considered for such a designation.  I would hope we feel that same pride about ours.

Rick

If Yellowstone's streams are heavily polluted, do you think it would be world recongnized for angling...

Do you think if Yellowstone were not a WHS it would pollute it streams?  We don't need a parasitic international organization to tell us how to run our parks.