some reflections on world heritage

Some Reflections on World HeritageAuthor(s): Douglas PocockSource: Area, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 260-268Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20003806 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 22:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Area.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 22:33:16 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20003806?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


260 Observations

Some reflections on World Heritage

Douglas Pocock, Department of Geography, University of Durham, Durham DHI 3LE

Summary This paper presents some initial reflections on the emergence of the World Heritage Convention in 1972, the significance of the appellation 'world' and the interpretation of

'heritage '. The dichotomous definition of heritage has found decreasing support in practice and occasioned changes in the original Operational Guidelines for implementing the Convention.

Introduction

Although ' wonders of the world ' have been acknowledged since classical times, collective action or assessment on a world scale is a feature of the present age. A general increasing international awareness of environmental change wrought by

modern technology first surfaced during the 1960s. At this time three large rescue campaigns, each led by UNESCO, attracted particular international attention resiting of the Nubian sculptures ahead of the rising waters of the Nile behind the

Aswan dam, restoration of central Florence after its flooding in 1966 and the problem of the annual winter flooding of Venice (UNESCO 1970). By the early 1970s awareness had turned to concern, expressed in the UN's Environment Programme,

UNESCO's Man and Biosphere Programme and international conferences on national parks. Each of the gatherings discussed, and favoured, the idea of a world convention, with the result that a Convention for the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted by UNESCO General Conference in 1972.

Under the terms of the Convention, an international non-governmental World Heritage Committee (WHC) was formed with a three-fold function. It was to produce a World Heritage List of cultural and natural properties ' of outstanding universal value ' from nominations submitted by State Parties (a term used by the

WHC for a country which has ratified the 1972 Convention). The assessment of cultural heritage sites was to be undertaken for the WHC by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and natural sites by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Secondly, from the accepted and inscribed properties, it was to produce a List of World Heritage in

Danger, for the purposes of emergency assistance. Thirdly, it was to administer a World Heritage Fund to assist needy State Parties in protecting their World Heritage properties. A logical fourth function was added later-monitoring the state of conservation of inscribed properties.

The legislation, considered one of humankind's most successful pieces of inter national cooperation, has now been operative for almost a quarter of a century, during which time 469 sites have been listed among the 142 states which have ratified the Convention. Sufficient time has therefore elapsed for a review of the concept of

world heritage as defined and interpreted through its associated legislation.

The nature of heritage

Heritage is a modern catchword and subject to a wide spectrum of attention-scholastic and commercial, serious and cynical. The WHC is concerned



Observations 261

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as ' cultural heritage ': monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, ele ments or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science; sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and of man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological points of view.

Article 2

For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as ' natural heritage ': natural features consisting of physical formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view; geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas which consti tute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation; natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty.

Figure 1 Definitions of the cultural and the natural heritage, from World Heritage Convention (1972) (italics by author-see text)

with material heritage, ie that which was been inherited by the present generation, either in the form of the natural environment or in humankind's sculptural action within the environment. (Art heritage, in terms of literature, music or painting, is omitted.) At a practical level the dichotomous conception of heritage, enshrined in the first two articles of the 1972 Convention (Figure 1), resulted from the Convention being the fusing of two distinct initiatives mentioned previously. From one side, UNESCO, with practical experience through the 1960s, was seeking recognition and protection for the world's outstanding historic monuments and buildings (UNESCO 1970). From the other, IUCN was concerned to achieve international recognition for national parks. At a deeper level the heritage split can be seen to mirror the separation of humankind and nature in Western, Enlightenment philosophy. A Eurocentric or Anglo-American influence, and an imperialist viewpoint, may also be seen in the museum-like attitude to cultural objects and a conception of' untouched' nature (Plachter and Rossler 1995, 16-17).

Before considering the outworking of the dualist conception enshrined in the Convention, it might be noted that a degree of ambiguity existed from the beginning between the Convention and its complementary Operational Guidelines (Figure 2). Article 1, defining cultural properties, mentioned ' combined works of nature and man', although the related Operational Guidelines, concerned with criteria which could merit listing, made no further mention. Article 2, defining natural properties, referred to ' the aesthetic point of view ' and ' natural beauty '-both cultural



262 Observations

Table 1 Growth of inscribed World Heritage properties

Type of Property

Year Cultural Natural Mixed Total State Parties

1980 74 18 2 94 55 1985 164 55 5 224 89 1990 254 80 11 345 115 1995 350 102 17 469 144

constructs, surely-and two of the four criteria in the Operational Guidelines mentioned 'man's interaction with his natural environment' and ' exceptional combinations of natural and cultural elements '.

The dualistic conception gave rise to a general principle ' to maintain a reasonable balance' (Operational Guidelines, para 6 iii) between the numbers of natural and cultural sites inscribed. A ' redressing ' of the balance with the more numerous cultural properties was one of the aims of the early ' indicative survey ' of natural sites by IUCN (1982, 8). Balance was still on the agenda in 1995 (World Heritage

Newsletter 1995, 3), as well it might be, since there has always been a disproportionate number of cultural properties on the World List-over three-quarters at the present time (Table 1).

Perhaps balance is a chimera, with there being more so-called ' geocultural regions ' than ' natural realms ': with ICOMOS detecting more diversity by cultural type and scale among different societies than ICUN delimits in its equivalent ' biogeographical provinces '. (The latter are strictly defined and delimited (Figure 3), whereas ' geocultural regions ' are not formally codified, but defined pragmatically in relation to nominations; they also fluctuate over time.) Again, perhaps the constituents of biodiversity overall are less tangible, accessible or amenable to ' inscription '. Or perhaps the WHC view of heritage is homo centric. (The Operational Guidelines takes three times the number of paragraphs to discuss the inscription criteria for cultural properties than for natural sites.) What experience has shown is that the precision of the 1972 dualist division was more apparent than real.

From almost the beginning a few sites were submitted to both advisory bodies for consideration. Those which were recommended by both ICOMOS and IUCN appeared as ' mixed sites ' on the World List, although the term itself is not to be found in either the Convention or the Operational Guidelines. At the present time 'mixed sites ' number only 4 per cent of the total, but they are significant for

containing the seeds of challenge to the two-fold conception of heritage. Although inscription on grounds of both natural and cultural criteria does not

necessarily imply significant interaction, examination of ' mixed sites ' led ever deeper into the question of interrelationship and interdependence-and hence, inevitably, to the concept of cultural landscapes. The latter, it came to be acknowledged, may be of value as much for what they represent as what they present, for meaning as much as material, for history as much as scenery (von Droste et al 1995).

The result is reflected in modifications to the particular criterion of the original Operational Guidelines, firstly to emphasize the tangible, then in 1996 to specify



Observations 263

A. Cultural Properties. One or more of the following criteria:

(i) represent a unique artistic or aesthetic achievement, a masterpiece of the creative genius; or

(ii) have exerted considerable influence, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture, monumental sculpture, garden and landscape design, related arts, town-planning or human settle

ments; or (iii) be unique, extremely rare, or of great antiquity; or (iv) be among the most characteristic examples of a type of structure, the type

representing an important cultural, social, artistic, scientific, technological or industrial development; or

(v) be a characteristic example of a significant style of architecture, method of construction or form of town-planning or traditional human settlement that is fragile by nature or has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible socio-cultural or economic change; or

(vi) be most importantly associated with ideas or beliefs, with events or with persons, of outstanding historical importance or significance.

B. Natural Properties. One or more of the following criteria:

(i) be outstanding examples representing the major stages of the earth's evolu tionary history. This category would include sites which represent the major ' eras ' of geological history such as ' the age of reptiles ' where the develop

ment of the planet's natural diversity can well be demonstrated and such as the ' ice age ' where early man and his environment underwent major changes; or

(ii) be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man's interaction with his natural environment. As distinct from the periods of the earth's development, this focuses upon ongoing processes in the development of communities of plants and animals, landforms and marine and freshwater bodies. This category would include for example (a) as geological processes, glaciation and volcanism, (b) as biological evolution, examples of biomes such as tropical rainforests, deserts and tundra, (c) as interaction between man and his natural environment, terraced agricultural landscapes; or

(iii) contain unique, rare or superlative natural phenomena, formations or features or areas of exceptional natural beauty, such as superlative examples of the most important ecosystems to man, natural features, (for instance, rivers, moun tains, waterfalls), spectacles presented by great concentrations of animals, sweeping vistas covered by natural vegetation and exceptional combinations of natural and cultural elements; or

(iv) be habitats where populations of rare or endangered species of plants and animals still survive. This category would include those ecosystems in which concentrations of plants and animals of universal interest and significance are found.

Figure 2 Criteria for inclusion of cultural and natural properties in the World Heritage List, from Operational Guidelines (1977) (italics by author-see text)

artistic or literary links. However, sites were to be included under this modified criterion ' only in exceptional circumstances or in conjunction with other criteria '

a severe stricture in view of the fact that only sites of ' outstanding universal value' were to be considered. (In 1996, logically, the section on natural sites in the Operational Guidelines was amended by the deletion of references to interaction with the cultural-refer to Figure 2).



264 Observations

Figure 3 Natural World ' realms ' defined by IUCN (1982) 1. Nearctic, 2a Western Palaearctic, 2b Eastern Palaearctic, 3. Afrotropical, 4. Indomalayan, 5. Oceanian, 6. Australian, 7. Antarctic, 8. Neotropical

Three main categories of cultural landscape were recognized-designed, created intentionally, eg gardens, parks; organically evolved, either relict (or fossil) or continuing; associative, related to religious, artistic or cultural meaning. The first-listed cultural landscapes illustrate well how the material emphasis on heritage cannot do justice to essentially non-material societies, a factor not fully realized when the first legislation was drawn up. The first was Tongariro National Park in New

Zealand, earlier inscribed as a natural site, reinscribed in 1993 when its religious significance to the Maoris was acknowledged. The second reinscription was the more well-known Urluru National Park, containing Ayers Rock, in the Western Desert of Australia. In 1987 it was listed as a natural site after evaluation by IUCN-but not ICOMOS-and then in 1994 reinscribed more appropriately as a ' mixed site ' in recognition that the area had probably been inhabited for 30 000 years, the last 5000 by the contemporary Anangu peoples. The two cultural criteria invoked now acknowledge the continuing living relationship between Aboriginal people and the natural environment, including the latter's social, religious and symbolic value (Titchen 1996; Layton and Titchen 1995).

The whole question of cultural landscapes within the context of the changing view of heritage is well illustrated by the fortune of the English Lake District. This area was on the initial tentative UK list compiled by the Department of Environment and in the second early batch of properties forwarded for consideration in 1987. It was nominated as a ' mixed site ' and thus considered by both ICOMOS and IUCN. It was referred, since although the former accepted it, ICUN did not, arguing that it did not meet the criterion of integrity (here, preservation in its natural state). It was resubmitted in 1989 as a cultural site. On this occasion ICOMOS agreed that although the prehistoric Langdale stone site was worthy of consideration, it alone could not justify inscribing the whole Lake District. It was thus deferred a second



Observations 265

time. The more fundamental reason for referral of the second submission-which the UK had been encouraged to forward as a test case-was that by now ICOMOS

was unclear on the appropriate evaluative criteria. Cultural landscapes were an

increasingly acknowledged heritage type, but lacked definitive legislation. (The only references to links between culture and the environment in the Operational Guidelines remained those relating to natural heritage sites!) Eventually, seven years after the second referral of the Lake District, the required criteria for cultural landscapes were inserted. Ironically, the Lake District, which fell between two stools in the evolving definition of heritage, will possibly not be submitted a third time, even though a case could be made for its associative value (Lakeland poets, Ruskin, National Trust), given the current views and work on landscape assessment of English Heritage (Fairclough 1994).

The addition of cultural landscapes has also been accompanied by the recognition of industrial archaeology or technological heritage, modern architecture and contem porary towns, also the involvement of local, indigenous peoples in the inscription and

management stages. The last-mentioned factor is likely to become important as more non-monumental cultures and cultural landscapes are considered. In other words, the answer to the question 'whose heritage? ' will no longer be divorced from the question ' which heritage? '. Such questions, in turn, ultimately relate to the ineluctable cultural nature of the whole heritage exercise. Natural sites and classification of the same, National Parks, nature even, are cultural constructs.

Differing perceptions among peoples may make some definitions culturally-specific, but that only confirms the basic nature of the exercise.

Reality, however defined through cultural perception, is one of interdependence of people and environment. As terrestrial creatures, we are always responding to, or interacting with, particular physical environments, but in turn, such has been our impact on the globe, that there is no ' natural ' environment unaffected by humankind. Quite apart from large-scale impacts from air and water pollution or global warming, it is now recognized that hunting, burning and agriculture have existed from prehistoric times in areas previously considered virginal or ' natural '-the tropical rainforests, African savannah or Australian desert. A glance at the natural sites on the current Heritage List will reveal that many have current economic activities within their boundaries, and that almost all have resident populations, ranging from the migrant Masai in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania to the modern settlement of Banff in the Canadian Rocky Mountain

Parks. It is not surprising, therefore, that a more realistic definition of ' natural ' has recently been suggested by a senior advisor within IUCN:

the term ' natural ' is a relative one; it implies an area that is largely free from the influence of modern human societies. It is recognized that no area is totally pristine and that all natural areas are in a dynamic state. A natural area is thus one where biological processes and geological features are still relatively intact and where the primary objective of the area is to ensure that natural processes remain as the dominant force in the system (Thorsell 1995, 10).

The proffered, more realistic definition no longer recognizes the rigid division between natural and cultural heritage; instead, it implies a continuum between areas where natural processes are dominant and those where the human imprint is uppermost (cultural landscapes would fall in the middle of the continuum).



266 Observations

0~~~~~ 0

Figure 4 The World Heritage emblem (UNESCO 1978)

If, and when, official recognition follows, it will, ironically, confirm what has been expressed on the UNESCO World Heritage logo, issued in 1978 on the inscription of the very first properties (Figure 4). The brief accompanying text states that the emblem

symbolizes the interdependence of cultural and natural properties: the central square is a form created by man and the circle represents nature, the two being intimately linked.

Interpretation of world status

The concept of a heritage of world status is awe-inspiring. It implies an ability to recognise, evaluate and classify sites which, in the words of the Convention's preamble, are ' of outstanding universal value '. In logical terms it might be expected that sites of such rank would be few, or at least limited in number, for whatever the precise definition of heritage, there is presumably some (inverse) relationship between status and total numbers. However the World List, currently growing by some 30 a year, can hardly be small. A total in excess of 1000 is entirely feasible, given that the leading states, including the UK, already have a dozen or more inscribed properties, with further ' tentative lists ' containing perhaps three or four times that number. Moreover, some 40 of the states which have ratified the

Convention have yet to nominate a single property. It could be argued that the recent prerequisite for countries to submit ' tentative

lists ' along with any new submissions is a step towards limiting the overall total,

although ostensibly it is in order to harmonize the lists of individual states within the same ' geocultural region '. (To date, however, fewer than half of the State Parties have submitted tentative lists.) A second step to the same end is the recent insertion in the Operational Guidelines (paras 59, 60) which asks that each site for nomination,

whether cultural or natural, should be evaluated relatively, that is, should be

compared with that of other properties or sites of the same type, both within and

beyond the State Party's borders. Clearly, on an international list there is a limit to

the number of paddy terraces, medieval castles, Roman settlements, or whatever, that can be incorporated. These two moves will certainly restrict the overall total; more

significantly, they represent a move away from the initial emphasis on uniqueness of

heritage towards its representiveness. If we turn from the logic of numbers to a literal interpretation of sites ' of

outstanding universal value ', then it is surely easier to perceive a consensus on such



Observations 267

sites in the natural world-Grand Canyon, Great Barrier Reef, Galopogus Islands, for example-than in the cultural world. In terms of cultural heritage, the only sites

which may literally have any measure of world value are those early hominid and Palaeolithic sites dating from before cultural divergence began. Very few later sites on the present List merit comparable significance-the old city of Jerusalem, perhaps, or, again, the location of the world's first coke-fired smelting furnace at the Ironbridge site. Indeed, the six criteria which may merit nomination of a cultural site themselves suggest a more restricted influence or importance, with three of them referring to a single civilization or culture (Operational Guidelines, para 24).

Again, a global cultural heritage is presumably related to, and interpretable through, a world history, which was a concept perhaps largely unchallenged during the early years of UNESCO's existence, but which is now intellectually untenable.

The Organization, as will be mentioned later, appears to have dropped any inference of a single global viewpoint as world heritage is fostered through regional conferences and specialist meetings.

Heritage of world rank, then, derives its status from the imprimatur of an international body. But that body can only inscribe properties nominated to it by individual countries. World heritage is thus the sum of scrutinized national heritages: the accumulation of nominations from State Parties which have ratified the 1972 Convention. The initiative lies with individual countries. This means that at any one time the pattern of world heritage is a reflection of the competence, complexion and activity of the states' nominating committees.

Apart from differing received views of heritage discussed previously, the world pattern is also influenced by States varying in their willingness to ' open ' sites to the

management and monitoring which follow official inscription. Israel, for example, is a notable non-signatory of the Convention-Jerusalem was nominated by Jordan. Saudi Arabia, with Mecca and Medina within its borders, technically has accepted, not ratified the Convention; low response is characteristic of several Islamic countries, reticent on nominating functioning religious buildings. In contrast, it could be held that competition may encourage other States to nominate, since heritage is an

expression of national self-esteem, of chauvinism, even. International comparison of heritage might therefore be considered to be underlaid by questions of power and position in the world (Cossons 1991, 1). Nevertheless, whatever the motive of individual State initiatives, the Convention remains based on the assumption that the 21 members of the WHC are able to adjudicate and reach political consensus on the unique, on the innately incomparable, of every State.

The policy of the WHC may be described as worldwide through what it terms its 'global strategy ', although in practice this operates at a regional level. Thus, it is

currently attempting to remedy the weak representations of several cultures-for example, the non-material cultures in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. An important part of this strategy is to hold regional ICOMOS meetings of scientific experts, together with those in charge of heritage, from a collection of States, in order to identify aspects of the cultural heritage which could eventually be nominated for listing. The two most recent global strategy meetings were in Zimbabwe in 1995 for central and eastern Africa, and in Ethiopia in 1996 for the Sudano-sahelian world and

Horn of Africa. A complementary move was the recent insertion of the Operational Guidelines (para 6 iii) asking State Parties well-represented on the List to consider slowing down their future rate of submission to allow others time to catch up. An early aid to encourage worldwide nominations was the previously-mentioned indicative inventory produced for the WHC by IUCN (1982).



268 Observations

Conclusion

The World Heritage Convention is a child of its time, as well as its lineage (Prott 1994, 8). Its dichotomous views of heritage and the degree of inconsistency in the legislation defining cultural and natural heritage have at times hindered rather than helped the smooth working of the WHC (Cameron 191, 3). Accordingly, the Operational Guidelines have been adjusted, and may be further refined, although it is most unlikely that the Convention will be reworded to reflect the more realistically coordinated perspective of heritage accepted today. The necessary administrative task involved-achieving agreement among all ratified State Parties-may well be too daunting, given the known diversity of opinion. Even without refinement, however, a quarter of a century of experience of the outworking of the World Heritage legislation reveal it to be one of humankind's most successful examples of international cooperation, and-no less important-a pointer to our desire to live in harmony with our earthly home.

Acknowledgement

I acknowledge the kind assistance of Dr Henry Cleere, World Heritage Coordinator, ICOMOS, in the

preparation of this paper.

References Burman P, Fawcett J, Feilden B and Kennet Lord (eds) (1991) Managing World Heritage Sites in Britain

(Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, University of York and ICOMOS UK, York)

Cameron C (1991) ' UK position in World Heritage ' in Burman P et al (eds) op. cit., 3

Cossons N (1991) 'World Heritage Sites: designation and delegation ' in Burman P et al (eds) op. cit., 1 Fairclough G (1994) 'Recent work in England-English Heritage' in ICOMOS UK Seminar on Cultural

Landscapes (ICOMOS UK, Chiswick) IUCN (1982) The World's Greatest Natural Areas (IUCN, Gland) Layton R and Titchen S (1995) ' Uluru: an outstanding Australian Aboriginal Landscape' in von Droste

B, Plachter H and Rossler M (eds) loc. cit., 174-81

Plachter H and Rossler M (1995), ' Cultural landscapes: reconnecting Culture and Nature ' in von Droste B, Plachter H and Rossler M (eds) loc. cit., 15-18

Prott L (1991) ' The genesis and philosophy of the World Heritage Convention ' in Burman P et al (eds) op. cit., 8

Thorsell J (1995) 'How natural are World Heritage natural sites? ' The World Heritage Newsletter 9, 8-11 Titchen S (1996) 'The Uluru-Kata Tjuta cultural landscape' The World Heritage Newsletter 10, 8-11

UNESCO (1970) Protection of Mankind's Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, Paris) Von Droste B, Plachter H and Rossler M (eds) (1995) Cultural Landscapes of Universal Value (Gustav

Fischer, Jena)



some reflections on world heritage

Documents