60

THE ART NEWSPAPER Number 240, November 2012

FEATURES

World Heritage at 40: success or mess?

Some conservationists say Unesco is toothless and penniless and has become too political By Rob Bevan
ith Aleppos Medieval souks still smouldering and Timbuktus ancient Sufi shrines hacked to pieces, its worth recalling the Croatian writer Slavenka Drakulics words on the 1993 destruction of Mostars Ottoman bridge: Why, she asked, do we feel more pain looking at the image of the destroyed bridge in Mostar than the image of the massacred people? We expect people to be mortal, she suggests, but, the destruction of a monument to civilisation is something else. [The bridge] was an attempt to grasp eternity. It transcended our individual destiny. Drakulics words encapsulate the importance of heritage in understanding our place and identity in the world. It seems self-evident today yet this is a youthful concept. True, the contemporary notion of patrimony has its roots in the damage caused to monuments during the French Revolution and for the next 200 years heritage was largely viewed through the lens of unsuccessful attempts to keep it off limits in wars. It wasnt until 1972, however, that Unesco agreed the World Heritage Convention, which set up a peacetime framework for global heritage protection for places of outstanding universal value to mankind. The impetus was the campaign to save Abu Simbel and other Nubian monuments from drowning in the rising waters of the manmade Lake Nasser. Relocation of the temple stones began in 1964 with the Temple of Dendur

Abu Simbel in Egypt, which was saved by Unesco. The organisation campaigned to relocate the Nubian temple which was threatened by the Aswan High Dam

A major hindrance to the future success of the convention is cash

going to New Yorks Metropolitan Museum of Art as a gift from Egypt in appreciation for US assistance in the temples rescue. The World Heritage Convention, along with a slew of other international conventions, should also be seen as a product of war, says the conservationist John Hurd. There was a fantastic fear after the Second World War. The convention was largely put together for the sake of world peace, he says. This still counts and the UN discusses it continually. Adoption of the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage linked for the first time the concepts of nature conservation and cultural properties as World Heritage Sites. The convention is governed by the World Heritage Committee, made up of representatives of signatory countries or state parties, serviced by its Paris secretariat, the World Heritage Centre. It is advised by voluntary experts from non-governmental organisations, principally the International Council on

Monuments and Sites (Icomos) for cultural matters and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (Icun) on natural sites. In 1978, the Galpagos Islands was the first heritage site listed. Fourteen years later, 377 sites had been agreed. While the founding fathers of the convention may only have had 100 global icons in mind, there are now almost 1,000 sites and the 190th countrySingaporehas become a state party, one of the very last nations to sign up. Of the 1,000 sites, 745 are cultural, 189 natural and 29 mixed.

Unesco under fire

A huge success then. Except that Unesco is under ever more fierce criticism for its handling of the World Heritage programme; from the pro-development lobby for its interference in Western planning decisions and from some conservationists who argue that Unesco is toothless in the face of conflicts ravaging heritage sites from Syria to Timbuktu and that the organisations site listing system is undermined by the politicisation of the process. It is also virtually penniless. Last year, Britains international development secretary, Andrew Mitchell, issued a yellow card saying the organisation wasted money

and failed to show concrete outcomes. Paul Finch, the ex-chair of the UKs Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment recently launched a broadside in the Architects Journal under the headline: Its time for French bully Unesco to stop interfering with our heritage sites, specifically those in London and Liverpool, and concluding, Remember Waterloo! The architect Rem Koolhaas and his practice, OMA, has also been touring the world with an exhibition decrying heritage controls: A huge section of our world (about 12%), says OMA, is now off limits, submitted to regimes we dont know, have not thought through, cannot influence World Heritage Sites could become an increasingly populous and constantly expanding archipelago of states. The figures are specious and include huge areas of sea as well as land (the Great Barrier Reef, for example) but the argument struck a cord. All sides acknowledge that the early cultural site list reflected Western heritage values and the iconic monuments of kings and bishops and did not include enough representative sites from developing countries or those representative of ordinary peoples lives. Most parties accept too that this situation has improved but it needs to change further as more nations build

their capacity to nominate and manage sites. There has also been an increasing awareness of intangible heritage, such as songs and ceremony, and of the need to ensure the authenticity of heritage but disagreement on how large the list should be and how far beyond the wonders of the world to secondary sites the convention should reach.

The politics of listing

John Hurd, the president of Icomoss advisory committee and the head of conservation for the US-based Global Heritage Fund, says that the total adds up to about five World Heritage Sites per signatory. Italy has the most at 47, Burkina Faso just one. The originators of the convention would have been pleased to see it realise 1,000. Even if you went back to 1972, people were of the opinion that it might climb up to 3,000 sites. It should be expanded, Hurd says. He acknowledges, though, that the process has become more politicised, with lobbying leading to sites being listed by the committee against the advice of its advisory bodiesoften for reasons of chasing the tourist dollar. Shifts in regional power and alliances, and emerging issues, such as the rise in museology in the Middle East versus Islamic precepts regarding

ABU SIMBEL: OLAF TAUSCH

THE ART NEWSPAPER Number 240, November 2012

61

TIMELINE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION 1945

Unesco is created at the end of the Second World War

1954
The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict

1959
Unesco leads the successful multi-national campaign to save the Nubian temple Abu Simbel from drowning in Lake Nasser following the building of the Aswan High Damn. Relocation begins in 1964

1970
Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property

1972
Adoption of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, linking for the first time the concepts of both nature conservation and cultural properties as World Heritage sites. The convention is governed by the World Heritage Committee
But Unesco couldnt stop the destruction of the Mostar Bridge, which was blown up in 1993 (although it did help rebuild it)
representation in art have also contributed to the increased politicisation of the listing process. Susan MacDonald, the head of field projects at the Getty Conservation Institute agrees: The advisory committee has become more political. Rather than a committee of heritage experts, representatives are more often administrators. This has made for less knowledge-based decisions. Corruption also undoubtedly occurs; one egregious example is a groups of Malaysian politicians connection to the building of resorts in the Gunung Mulu National Park. Unesco doesnt have many sanctions to impose beyond bad publicity. It can put a site on its list of places in danger, or threaten to de-list a World Heritage property. The latter has only happened twice: Dresden was delisted after a bridge was built across the Elbe in the face of Unesco objections, and the Arabian oryx sanctuary in Oman was removed at its own governments request after it decided to shrink it by 90%. them and made travel agents happy. It is the sort of thinking that will turn dynamic world cities like London into dead zones. Finch maintains that the body has turned its gaze on the West as a sop to developing countries irritated by being repeatedly told of their heritage management shortcomings. Francesco Bandarin was for a decade the director of the World Heritage Centre before being promoted to Unescos assistant directorgeneral for culture. He rejects Finchs claims. We dont make distinctions, if heritage values are threatened, we intervene, whether in a developed or emerging country. Countries with more developed planning systems should have fewer problems protecting their heritage, but is this true? Weve had critical cases in Vienna, London, Cologne, Seville, St Petersburg, Riga, to cite only a few, Bandarin says. We are firmly against an opposition between conservation and development, outcomes can have on democratically elected councillors making the decisions, he says. But in a tussle where bad publicity is the only weapon available (there are no statutory powers relating to heritage sites in the UK or in most other countries), Sue Miller, the president of Icomoss International Scientific Committee for Cultural Tourism, thinks that the heritage sector could come off worse. Paul Finch has a point, Miller says. We need to become high-profile brokers and not as we are perceived at present the no people. In London, the fabric around the Tower of London is constantly changing and has been for centuries so to fight high-rise there is churlish, but we should protect Westminster from intrusions of high-rise.Heritageis badly served by some of its protagonists who frequently take entrenched, unrealistic positions. Some of the problems with heritage sites are the problem of success. Rapid urbanisation and more frequent natural disasters and conflicts are taking a toll on sites as the land area encompassed by the designation grows. Designation, it is argued, also brings with it damaging footfall and excessive water use from tourism. Angkor Wat and sites in Laos are often cited, but it is hard to separate the consequences of designation from a general rise in tourism. Many planning efforts to address the issue, such as the plan developed for Angkor, have failed owing to weak local enforcement, says Vince Michael, the chief conservation officer at the Global Heritage Fund. Arguably more sites on the list would spread the tourism out rather than focusing it on a few must-see sites. The fund works on sites in Cambodia and Peru that are as rich and interesting as Angkor and Machu Picchu, but are overlooked because they lack World Heritage inscription.

1975
Ratification of the convention. The List of World Heritage in Danger and World Heritage Fund are created

1978
The World Heritage Committee develops selection criteria and operational guidelines. Ecuadors Galpagos Islands is the first of 12 sites to be inscribed on the World Heritage List

1992
Sites inscribed: 377. The World Heritage Centre is established in Paris to oversee the management of the convention. Cultural landscapes are protected

1994
Global strategy adopted to address imbalances
on the list. The Nara Document on Authenticity is adopted

1996
After the Bosnian War, the Blue Shield, the cultural equivalent of the Red Cross, is established, working alongside Unesco and Icorp, the Icomos body dealing with heritage at risk

Corruption also undoubtedly occurs, but Unesco doesnt have many sanctions to impose
But it is when the conventions representatives challenge developments in Western cities that the most anti-Unesco feeling is provoked. Unescos sabre rattling in the UKs direction has been increasing in volume of lateabout massive development schemes on Liverpools waterfront, and in Edinburgh and particularly in London, first over office developments close to the Tower of London and more recently proposals for towers by Waterloo Station, which opponents say will adversely affect the setting of the Westminster World Heritage Site. Paul Finch, the editorial director of Architects Journal, argues that trying to protect such a wide setting in a global city would lead to urban stasis and that Unesco is an undemocratic body throwing its weight about. The idea that English Heritage is not protecting World Heritage Sites, or that government policy is somehow ignoring them, is demonstrable nonsense, he says. They have been identified as being significant long before Unesco noticed Bandarin adds. We always look at the needs of cities and communities, and we have recently adopted a new recommendation on the historic urban landscape to address properly the need for harmonising urban conservation and development. [But] there is no obligation to be on the World Heritage List, its a choice of the communities and of governments. This is what builds the credibility of the list. The world heritage consultant, Jukka Jokilehto, asks why London isnt using its power: If the Mayor of London has said that the Tower of London will not have skyscrapers around it, why is something else now happening? Why are the British forgetting their inheritance? Andrew Croft, the head of heritage at the construction services giant Atkins agrees. The UK and many other developed countries have used the excuse that their planning systems are fair to avoid scrutiny. Now that scrutiny has started, issues are beginning to emerge such as the influence that major economic development

2002
The Budapest Declaration sets our four key strategic objectives: credibility, conservation, capacity-building and communication

2003
Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage identifies living heritagesong, drama, skillshuman treasure for preservation (effective 2006)

2007
A fifth objective, community, is added to the strategic objectives

Survival of sites
Sue Miller puts well managed tourism at the centre of any strategy to ensure the survival of sites. The engagement of visitors in understanding why these places are so special is central to the conservation of the worlds greatest places, she says, adding: World Heritage destinations are a global success story, with tourism receipts fundCONTINUED ON PAGE 62

2012
The 40th anniversary of the convention. A year of events with a focus on sustainable development. A wide-ranging review of the convention is begun. Sites inscribed on the list: 962

MOSTAR: PETE AND KIMMY BIRD

62

THE ART NEWSPAPER Number 240, November 2012

FEATURE
World Heritage at 40
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 57

ing support for conservation activities. The denial of this nexus between conservation and tourism could have dire consequences. Bandarin calls tourism the main challenge for heritage conservation in the 21st century. According to him, tourism has grown exponentially, and while it has great economic development potential, it could also be very destructive. He has proposed to the Unesco board that it study a recommendation on the relationship between heritage and tourism that will in turn inform national policies.

FLASHPOINTS in the World Heritage Conventions history

DRESDEN In 2009, the Dresden Elbe Valley, inscribed for its historic monuments and parks set in meadows, was the first cultural site to be deleted from the list after a four-lane bridge was built through its heart. St Petersburg, London, Liverpool and Edinburgh are other Western cities with sites that Unesco says are under threat. BOSNIA & CROATIA The targeting of heritage sites in the war in the former Yugoslavia brought the fate of heritage in times of conflict into sharp focus. Arguably, the shelling of Dubrovnik and the razing of Mostars bridge helped alter perceptions of the conflict, leading to outside intervention. BAMIYAN BUDDHAS Despite appeals from Unesco and from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which recognised the Afghan regime, the Taliban decided that the two buddhas were idolatrous and destroyed them in 2001. Although what to do with the remains is still being debated, one suggestion is to leave the empty niches as they are as a reminder of what used to be . PREAH VIHEAR A dispute over the ownership of the 11th-century temple at Preah Vihear on the Thai-Cambodian border intensified after Unesco declared it a World Heritage Site. Sporadic fighting saw the temple slightly damaged by Thai shelling in 2011. Troops on both sides pulled back in July this year.

Budget cuts
A major hindrance to the future success of the convention is cash. Last year, after Unesco admitted Palestine as a member, the US promptly cut off its $80m annual contribution almost a quarter of the organisations budget. There was never that much money in the first place with the conventions World Heritage Fund having a meagre $14m. Much of the heritage work on the ground is carried out by volunteers. Something has to give. Unesco is determined to shift the emphasis to state parties to look after their own sites. There has been complacency in that once on the list that Unesco will look after everything. All they have to do is milk the cash cow, John Hurd says. There is now an increasing reliance on bodies such as the Global Heritage Fund and the World Monuments Fund. The latter has its own high-profile watchlist of heritage in danger. Unesco is so impoverished it is almost unable to meet its basic commitments, says the Gettys Susan MacDonald. Partnerships with non-profits and other third sector organisations are therefore vital. Organisations like my own are having to do more policy and strategic work as government reduces this. But strong national legislation is needed for good outcomes. Unesco is using its 40th anniversary as an opportunity to undertake some heavy-duty soul searching. Are the objectives of the convention as

relevant today as they were 40 years ago? Yes is the resounding answer, but a review of how its aims are achieved is underway with a conference planned to discuss outcomes in early 2013. Hurd wants state parties to take more responsibility, and for the way that the national advisory bodies operate to converge; Miller also wants the conventions operational guidelines to address tourism (it is not mentioned at present). All agree that the way the World Heritage Committee does business needs addressing.

Vetting process
In terms of unsuitable sites and lobbying, it is quite straightforward, says Andrew Croft. Establish an independent body of experts to vet nominations to weed out unsuitable sites and to advise state parties and local bodies promoting sites as to the worthwhileness of the proposal. He feels that Icomos and Icun are not performing that role adequately and that their programmes should more directly address interre-

lated issues, such as climate change, poverty, water shortages and rapid urbanisation. It is not easy, says Jukka Jokilehto, because the people who decide the rules also decide how to bend them. It would be necessary to establish a step-by-step process for the nomination, which could start with the professional recognition of the outstanding universal value, then go further and verify the boundaries, and finallyafter a probation periodverify the conservation and management regime. Croft is more radical: One major issue with the World Heritage Site system is that it makes static the meaning and value of a placechange therefore becomes a threat. We need to explore how we can build change into the conceptualisation and nomination of a World Heritage Site. Perhaps the importance of the World Heritage Convention is only truly recognised when it fails in its mission. What to do when Bamiyans buddhas are blown up, for example? Unescos roar can be that of a paper tiger as far

The writer is a member of Icomos

DRESDEN: DE.ACADEMIC.RU, BAMIYAN: CNN 2001

as iconoclasts or dictators are concerned. That is the question on everyones lips, Hurd says. We cant do anything about armed groups walking around destroying things, there is no heritage army. He instead points to quiet success in places such as Libya where the heritage sector supplied inventories of sites to be avoided to combatants. Very few heritage sites suffered from bombardment and because of the process of listing the sites, locals began to defend their heritage on the ground. We are doing the same thing in Syria and Maliregistering every significant and not so significant heritage property. Thats all we can do, Hurd says. The fact that we care at all is a convention success story, says Vincent Michael. The reaction the world had to Mostar, to Bamiyan, to Mali and Aleppo, is not conceivable without it. Yes, we are asking too much of the convention. We always have. That is what humans do. We strive for a higher goal than we can achieve, he says.