RSS Feed for the unit World Heritage

Introduction

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

This unit provides an overview of World Heritage, its political and cultural origins and the role of UNESCO and other agencies in identifying and listing sites. It identifies and discusses with exemplification the major conventions and protocols affecting World Heritage. It shows how World Heritage expanded from cultural to natural and other sites, as well as embracing landscapes, and intangible and industrial heritages. It provides case studies of New Lanark as industrial heritage, Bath and Edinburgh as World Heritage Cities, and the Tarragona archaeological and historical ensemble as a driver of economic change in the development of cultural tourism. It also contains an audio case study exploring the Lake District World Heritage bid.

This unit is an adapted extract from the course Understanding global heritage (AD281).

Learning outcomes

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

This unit will:

introduce you to the history of the World Heritage Convention
introduce you to the wording of the World Heritage Convention and the World Heritage List
introduce you to the relationship between UNESCO and the states parties in the nomination of sites to the World Heritage List
introduce you to how World Heritage is assessed and managed
introduce you to the various categories of World Heritage
help you to start to think about World Heritage critically
introduce you to the ways in which professionals and other stakeholders make judgements about heritage and to the underlying value systems on which these judgements are based.

1 Introducing World Heritage

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

Before we tackle the concept of World Heritage, do the activity below.

Activity 1

15 minutes

Take a look at the website of the World Heritage Centre to familiarise yourself with the World Heritage List and some of the operations of the UNESCO under the banner of the World Heritage Centre.

Go to the ‘advanced search’ and do a search of the list based on a category of heritage (natural, cultural or mixed) and a country to pursue your own interest. In your Learning Journal make a list of the number of sites listed under the category you have chosen in that country. You might like to look at what is written about some of the sites and record the reasons why they are considered to be World Heritage.

Discussion

I was interested in looking at the number of cultural sites listed in the USA. At the time I searched, there were eight properties listed, including the Statue of Liberty (which was ‘inscribed’, or added to the list, in 1984) and the Independence Hall (which was one of the earliest World Heritage sites inscribed in 1979). Because there are new sites being added to the list all the time, the numbers may be different even if you did the same search. I hope you took the chance to take a look at the criteria for inscription and got a better idea of what sort of places are listed on the World Heritage List.

2 World Heritage

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

This unit provides an overview of World Heritage, its political and cultural origins and the role of UNESCO and other agencies in identifying and listing sites. It identifies and discusses with exemplification the major conventions and protocols affecting World Heritage. It shows how World Heritage expanded from cultural to natural and other sites, as well as embracing landscapes, and intangible and industrial heritages. It provides case studies of New Lanark as industrial heritage, Bath and Edinburgh as World Heritage Cities, and the Tarragona archaeological and historical ensemble as a driver of economic change in the development of cultural tourism. It discusses many issues about World Heritage, some of which are essentially political but also affected by Eurocentric or pro-western cultural norms that are rapidly being challenged by more inclusive views and strategies designed to promote more representative heritages than the previous canon encompassed. This unit provides an overview and description of the function of World Heritage.

2.1 An overview of World Heritage

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

This unit provides a survey of the politics, history and workings of World Heritage bodies as one of the bases for investigation and analysis in the chapters that follow.

According to Robert Hewison, heritage can mean anything you want – it can mean everything or nothing (Hewison, 1987, p. 32). But does his critique of Britain’s heritage also apply more widely to World Heritage? Partly perhaps, for investigation of this late twentieth-century phenomenon reveals a vast international bureaucracy that decides what World Heritage is and exercises huge influence over its management. Heading this, and based in Paris, is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, which defines, protects and promotes cultural and natural sites, sustained in many instances by large-scale government investment. Its global reach is supported by an array of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) which are politically independent of governments but sometimes funded by them. The great majority derive their mission from UNESCO conventions and protocols to which their respective countries (or state parties) are signatories. Laurajane Smith (2006, pp. 87–114), following Byrne ([1991] 2008) provides a review of these heritage protocols and the discourse they have promoted. World Heritage in the 1970s was seen as being defined by an essentially European, certainly western, mindset – revisions stuck closely to the original precepts, and diversification, while slow, had speeded and begun to embrace non-western and non-traditional heritages. Natural heritage seems to have been a poor runner-up in the race for inscriptions (discussed below), suggesting a secondary role in the World Heritage portfolio. Yet the picture is variable because in the USA, Australia and elsewhere, natural sites dominate the World Heritage List. And, if it means anything, many natural sites are on a massive scale compared with cultural sites.

In this unit you increase your understanding of what World Heritage is: you learn more about the NGOs that delimit its activities and run it; its complex protocols and procedures; the scope of cultural, natural and intangible heritages; and the wide diversity of World Heritage sites. Three case studies explore examples of industrial heritage, World Heritage Cities and World Heritage in relation to economics. Following this unit it should be possible to explore particular interests with a better appreciation of the processes and implications of World Heritage strategies for designation, conservation, regeneration, cultural tourism and other issues addressed elsewhere in this book.

This is a huge subject of truly global proportions. Coverage in this book is inevitably limited, and both overviews and case studies are highly selective. Indeed some elements of the world’s patrimony, natural or cultural, are of such significance that they would merit inclusion on any list of wonders. Among natural features counted as World Heritage, the Great Barrier Reef off Eastern Australia, the Amazonian rainforests, and human artefacts like the Great Wall of China and the Egyptian pyramids fall into this category; but of course there are many other famous sites in the world that do not quite match these in scale or perhaps even in importance. This raises immediate issues: why World Heritage? What is big enough or of such importance that it can be considered for inclusion, and does important mean ‘biggest and best’? How is inclusion determined, and who decides what’s in and what’s out? Who maintains and promotes such places, landscapes or cultures, and to what political, social and economic ends? What impact do World Heritage inscriptions and related developments have on communities, indeed on regions and nations? Such questions are discussed and reviewed generally and in the case studies in this unit.

According to the Venice Charter (ICOMOS, [1964] 1996a), World Heritage sites are places or buildings of outstanding universal value recognised by UNESCO as constituting a World Heritage ‘for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate’. While the definition has been broadened substantially to embrace many natural and cultural sites, the original ethos and underlying precepts and protocols of the charter prevail. Moreover, as Laurajane Smith (2006, pp. 91–3, for example) indicates, World Heritage has its own vocabulary, using the discourse of international diplomacy. Much of its documentation, originating in French, takes on a mid-Atlantic flavour in English, something readily appreciated from the numerous websites dedicated to the subject. This unit’s review is confined to the major international players but there are many national, regional and local bodies whose activities can be assessed via their websites. This review draws heavily on the writer’s personal experience as a historian and heritage practitioner in the UK, Australia and the USA, opinions being his own not those of heritage bodies with which he has been or continues to be associated.

2.2 The development of World Heritage

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

From its inception as a concept World Heritage has been integrally linked to international politics, and those who are excluded, or exclude themselves, from the moral world community have invariably been excluded from decisions about World Heritage. After the First World War the League of Nations, established in 1920, aimed to promote peace and encourage international cooperation. It was far from inclusive, for despite the enthusiasm of President Woodrow Wilson (US president 1913–21) one of its main promoters, the USA, refused to join. Germany was excluded until 1926 and the USSR denounced it as a capitalist club until it eventually joined in 1934. Although partly undermined by such structural problems and deepening political crises, the league had some modest successes and its international agencies did much to foster internationalism. As far as heritage was concerned, under its auspices in 1931 the International Council of Museums (ICOM) promoted a congress in Athens which established basic principles for an international code of practice for the preservation and restoration of ancient buildings. The congress conclusions and the subsequent Athens Charter (ICOMOS, [1931] 1996b) reflected a growing consciousness about historic sites, and opened up the debate about conservation issues and the nature and value of international heritage. The charter set important benchmarks for future technical and moral cooperation, on the role of education and the value of documentation.

Established near the end of the Second World War to help stabilise international relations, the United Nations (UN) came into being in 1945. As the successor to the league, the UN inherited similar problems, notably the conflicting interests of the five permanent members of the Security Council – Britain, China, France, the USSR and the USA – plus the numerous issues surrounding peace keeping in a world divided by the Cold War between the capitalist West and the Communist bloc. At the outset many countries we know today were missing from the UN but from the mid-1950s onwards, with the creation of new states, the number of members grew very considerably and the residual colonial position of the leading European powers, notably Britain and France, dwindled. This exercised considerable influence on the UN’s many organs, among them the one that came to play a central role in World Heritage. Postwar reconstruction in Europe, the Far East and elsewhere was to include the rebuilding of education systems, and the organisation to facilitate and promote this, UNESCO, was also founded in 1945. The UNESCO mission statement focuses on the promotion of peace and harmony between nations and this has continued to underscore its work. Indeed, it has become one of the key ‘uses’ of heritage.

From the outset UNESCO also played a role in the promotion and rescue of historic sites. In Europe postwar reconstruction from 1945 to 1955 brought about the large-scale restoration of damaged cities including Dresden, Warsaw, Gdansk, Blois and Vicenza, among others. Concern at the scale of war damage was such that the Hague Convention produced in 1954 a convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, and which arguably had considerable significance for World Heritage in the longer term.

Another important trigger to further action was the international concern raised by the construction of the Aswan High Dam in Egypt, which would flood the valley containing the Abu Simbel and other temples, significant relics of ancient Egypt. In 1959, following an appeal from Egypt and Sudan, UNESCO instigated a major conservation programme which involved intensive archaeological excavations and the removal, stone by stone, of the temples that were reconstructed on higher ground above the flood line (Figure 1). The Aswan project cost US $80 million, half from fifty donor countries, an early indication of solidarity and nations’ shared responsibility in conserving outstanding cultural sites. At the time of writing twenty-six international ‘safe guarding campaigns’ were devoted to saving a range of sites including Venice and its lagoon, the archaeology of Mohenjo-Daro in Pakistan, and restoring the Borobudur temple compounds in Indonesia.

These campaigns are much broader in scope than the preservation of specific World Heritage sites, being more technologically complex and often involving investment of millions of US dollars. The Venice project, dating from 1966, following UNESCO’s decision to promote a campaign designed to save the city after the disastrous floods of 1965, is one of the most complex (Figure 2). This, as UNESCO notes, was a task requiring time, high levels of technical skill and, above all, money. But the international synergy arising from this project proved a vital inspiration both to the production of the Venice Charter and to the later World Heritage Convention.

Figure 1 The Rialto Bridge, Venice. Unknown photographer. Photo: © Siwiak Travel/Alamy.

Venice came to be associated with the second major protocol concerning conservation, for there in 1964 an international congress of heritage experts produced the Venice Charter. This defines internationally accepted standards of conservation relating to buildings and other sites. It emphasises the importance of authenticity and maintaining the historical and physical context of the site, and makes clear that monuments are to be conserved as historical evidence as well as cultural artefacts. It also spells out a code for restoration and preservation. While concerned mainly with buildings and cultural sites, the Venice Charter continues to be the most influential international conservation protocol.

Figure 2 Sandstone head of Ramses II being moved to be reassembled at the new site of Abu Simbel, 1966. Photographed by Terrence Spencer. Photo: © Terrence Spencer/Time and Life Pictures/Getty Images.

The Venice Charter became the founding document of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), another international NGO with roots going back to the First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments which had produced the Athens Charter. ICOMOS, formed in 1965, assembled a network of architects, historians, landscape architects, engineers, archaeologists, geographers, town planners, anthropologists, conservators, heritage administrators and site managers to help assess sites. It was to provide evaluations of cultural and mixed properties for inscription in the World Heritage List (see below). The Parisbased ICOMOS, assisted by a growing number of national committees, thus became a key player in World Heritage selection.

At the same time the concept of combining conservation of cultural sites with natural sites was gaining currency in the USA. In 1965 a White House conference in Washington DC called for international cooperation to protect ‘the world’s superb natural and scenic areas and historic sites for the present and the future of the entire world citizenry’. In 1968 another NGO, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which had been established with its headquarters in Switzerland, developed a similar set of proposals. Presented to a UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm these proposals established international measures of protection and conservation similar to those for cultural sites.

Hence the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (or ‘World Heritage Convention’) developed from the coincidence of separate movements focusing on the one hand on the preservation of cultural sites, and on the other dealing with the conservation of nature. Ultimately a single text was agreed to by all parties and the convention was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO in November 1972. Since then all countries joining UNESCO have ratified the convention.

The Venice Charter and ‘pre-convention’ background are vital to an understanding of the relationship between the major heritage charters since 1964. The sheer number of different charters indicates the increasing ‘governmentalisation’ of heritage over the course of the late twentieth century.

This background also helps de-code what has become politically an increasingly complex field reflected in a large international bureaucracy and a proliferation of related national organisations. On the ground there has been increasing diversification in listings, with more groupings of sites, some in quite interesting ways, like serial (or groups of similar) sites, route ways, industrial heritage, designations of heritage cities and cultural landscapes, the emergence of new heritages (such as intangible heritage), and of large-scale restoration and safeguarding campaigns.

UNESCO claims the World Heritage Convention is not just ‘words on paper’ but an instrument for concrete action in preserving threatened sites or endangered environments, species and, more recently, cultures.

The convention is an important document and merits close analysis, albeit briefly in this context. In short, it:

defines the cultural and natural heritage
calls for national and international protection of the heritage established by the World Heritage Committee (see below)
calls on states to submit lists
draws up a World Heritage List
defines World Heritage in danger
promotes international assistance, supported by state parties
sets up a secretariat
establishes a fund for the protection of cultural and natural heritage
promotes educational programmes.

Hence the convention established the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, comprised of twenty-one state parties (countries) which are elected for a fixed term by the General Assembly of State Parties. A growing number of countries have ratified the convention: 184 in total by 2007. The convention has encouraged these countries to endorse its objects, and to catalogue, name and conserve sites of cultural or natural importance to the common heritage of humanity. Under certain conditions listed sites can obtain funds from the World Heritage Fund.

While these aims are highly laudable, fulfilment is potentially complex and in some contexts politically sensitive, but there are obvious benefits. The overarching benefit is being part of a global community dedicated to conserving international cultural and natural heritage. The main rewards are: sharing a commitment to a heritage legacy; raising awareness about preservation in localities and regions; access to funding via the World Heritage Centre, especially for threatened sites (and the list of World Heritage in Danger repays investigation); development of management plans for sites and training in heritage conservation and promotion; the prestige of inscription of national sites; and economic development, especially sustainable (cultural and environmental) tourism (UNESCO, 1972; World Heritage Centre, 2005).

Once more reflecting UN political principles, there is a strong element of international cooperation and goodwill reflected here, plus the obvious influence of World Heritage accolade(s) on attracting initial funds, medium and long-term investment, and the multiplier effect on the economy, notably through tourism. Although little of this is apparently contentious, it can be, as was the case in 1986 when President Ronald Reagan (US president 1981–9) withdrew the USA, a move interpreted at the time as a reaction to UNESCO’s anti-imperialist messages and accusations of corruption. Margaret Thatcher (UK prime minister 1979–90) followed suit with considerable implications for UK heritage accreditation. Arguably, as many heritage professionals can testify, despite its enormously rich heritage, it took the UK years to recover its influence after Tony Blair (UK prime minister 1997–2007) returned the country to the UNESCO fold in 1997.

2.3.1 Nomination

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

Politics inevitably influence the complex business of nomination to the World Heritage List. While UNESCO sets universal guidelines, in reality the process varies greatly from country to country and highlights very different national priorities and selection procedures. Ironically for a ‘world’ listing, it is the state parties that propose the sites, so national priorities may well be in conflict with efforts to produce a representative list at a global level.

There are three stages: listing, nomination and designation or inscription. At the outset a country makes an inventory of its most important cultural, natural or other features. This is called the Tentative List and is important because according to the protocols a country cannot nominate properties that have not already been listed here. Second, it selects a site/property from this list to place in a Nomination File, with an entry that is as comprehensive as possible and prepared with the advice of the World Heritage Centre.

The next stage is the evaluation by ICOMOS and/or IUCN, which then make their recommendations to the World Heritage Committee. The committee meets once a year primarily to decide whether or not to inscribe each nominated property on the World Heritage List. Given the complexity of the process and the detailed submissions, the great majority of suggestions are approved, though the committee sometimes defers the decision to request further information or data to enhance the case.

2.3.2 Selection criteria

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

There are ten Selection Criteria that a place, object or practice of heritage needs to meet for inclusion. Until 2004 there were six criteria for cultural heritage and four for natural heritage. In 2005 this was modified to make one set often criteria (and also to take account of intangible heritage). Nominated sites are described as being of ‘outstanding universal value’ and must meet at least one of the ten criteria.

Cultural criteria

To represent a masterpiece of human creative genius.
To exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design.
To bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared.
To be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history.
To be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change.
To be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria).

Natural criteria

(vii) to contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;
(viii) to be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth’s history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;
(ix) to be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;
(x) to contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-site conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.

(UNESCO, 2008a)

While subsequent conventions have altered the balance, few would dispute the bias towards cultural sites/artefacts rather than natural/environmental ones, but there is an attempt to be inclusive of many human and natural phenomena. The criteria are certainly open to wide interpretation and one might well question whether fitting only one criterion is enough to justify World Heritage status.

All of this raises some interesting issues about the process, particularly how the selection for nominations is made and, indeed, by whom. According to one analyst, nomination of sites for the World Heritage List largely depends on who takes the initiative. The answer to the question of who initiates nominations differs by country, over time and according to the type of site. Differences between countries are most obvious when sites are selected at the centre, the initiative for nomination being taken at national level, often during the initial period after signing up to the convention and the construction of the Tentative List. Depending on the context, decentralised nominations sometimes replace centralised ones over time. And in general those involved in the cultural field have always been more interested and active than those in natural heritage. While this is suggestive of the view that World Heritage is primarily concerned with elite culture, in some countries (like the USA) state parks and natural or scientific sites were and remain well represented relative to cultural ones.

A recent study of World Heritage nomination (van der Aa, 2005) includes some interesting case studies of the processes in Poland, the Netherlands, Mexico, the USA, Spain and the UK which identify various patterns, including: a ‘historical core’ of typical sites, as in Poland; the key narrative of the ‘battle against water’ in the Netherlands (also specifically concentrated in the historical core of the country and dating to the Dutch ‘Golden Age’); core sites of pre-Hispanic and Hispanic Mexico, centrally selected (and with belated recognition of Mexico’s post-colonial heritage). In the USA a mixed ‘best-judgement’ list, assembled at federal level but taking account of heritage and environmental professionals at both federal and state levels, has succeeded in highlighting a wide range of representative histories, landscapes and cultures. However, it has also taken account of both the long-established and highly developed system of national parks (referred to below) and sites already on the National Register of Historic Places. In Spain the large degree of autonomy to the regions has ensured strong representation of regional identities and cultures including, in Andalusia and elsewhere, Muslimoriented sites. Also included is one of the early ‘serial sites’, the pilgrim route to Santiago de Compostela that runs through five regions and was listed in 1993 (van der Aa, 2005, pp. 58–61).

The UK’s approach has also been relatively decentralised, reflecting its constituent countries. In the later 1980s and into the 1990s, backed by statutory bodies like English Heritage and Historic Scotland plus numerous heritage groups and professionals, this process created a list drawn from all parts of the country but with fewer culturally distinct sites than, say, Spain. It seems that although some central responsibility was evident, it was rather a piecemeal operation involving many bodies (500 organisations and individuals were consulted in England alone) and with different working methods in each context, including bodies in Wales and Scotland (all essentially working separately). Certainly many consultants and experts expressed their views, but the diversity of the UK’s heritage made it extremely difficult to focus on anything more than the obvious, the big frontrunners, Stonehenge, Westminster, Bath etc. However, the earliest listings in the 1980s comprised essentially elite selections, mainly of English sites. This changed over time to embrace industrial heritage in later listings, for example Blaenavon iron works and landscapes, the other industrial villages of New Lanark and Saltaire, and more natural features such as the spectacular Dorset and East Devon Coast. It is unclear how the list of sites in overseas territories was arrived at, perhaps another example of the essentially ‘top-down’ approach generally adopted (Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 1999).

2.3.3 Global representation

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

In 2009 there were 878 World Heritage sites situated in 145 State Parties (countries). Of the total, 679 are essentially cultural, 174 natural and 25 described as mixed properties. As Table 1 shows, UNESCO classifies countries into five geographic regions, each perhaps with shared concepts of heritage – Africa, the Arab States (North Africa and the Middle East), Asia and the Pacific (including Australia, New Zealand and Oceania), Europe and North America (USA and Canada), and Latin America and the Caribbean. Note that Russia and Caucasus countries are included in the Europe and North America region. Table 1 includes a breakdown of the sites according to these regions and their classification:

Table 1 Types of site by region (UNESCO)

Region	Cultural	Natural	Mixed	Total	%
Africa	40	33	3	76	9%
Arab States	60	4	1	65	7%
Asia and the Pacific	125	48	9	182	21%
Europe and North America	372	54	9	435	49%
Latin America and the Caribbean	82	35	3	120	14%

(Source: data from UNESCO, 2009)

Analysis of such statistics needs to take account of the way UNESCO defines its geographic regions, which inevitably skews the data. Indeed, the emphasis on administrative rather than political units makes evaluation difficult beyond the obvious. So where are the sites in Asia and the Pacific, Europe and North America, and elsewhere? The overwhelming dominance of Europe and North America, with nearly half the sites, suggests the developed world has been highly proactive with regard to World Heritage and been suitably rewarded by UNESCO. Second, the prominence of cultural sites, more than three-quarters of the total, is clear, and raises pretty obvious questions about the balance between cultural and natural heritage in the World Heritage portfolio. And it suggests very different views about what constitutes World Heritage in different parts of the globe.

2.3.4 A wider vision?

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

The global and typological distribution of World Heritage sites revealed by these data was historically even more biased than at present. But they also suggest that the initiative launched by the World Heritage Centre in 1994 to promote a global strategy for a more balanced, representative and credible World Heritage List has been at least partially successful. By the early 1990s it had become obvious that despite more than twenty years of work World Heritage lacked balance in the types of property and the geographical areas represented. Of 410 registered sites, 304 were cultural only 90 natural and 16 mixed, the great majority in developed regions of the globe, notably Europe.

It is worth examining this 1994 resume of UNESCO global strategy, asking three questions as we do so. What were the key objectives of the strategy? Why were they regarded as necessary? What was the outcome?

The objectives of the Global Strategy

By adopting the Global Strategy, the World Heritage Committee wanted to broaden the definition of World Heritage to better reflect the full spectrum of our world’s cultural and natural treasures and to provide a comprehensive framework and operational methodology for implementing the World Heritage Convention.

This new vision goes beyond the narrow definitions of heritage and strives to recognise and protect sites that are outstanding demonstrations of human coexistence with the land as well as human interactions, cultural coexistence, spirituality and creative expression.

Crucial to the Global Strategy are efforts to encourage countries to become States Parties to the Convention, to prepare Tentative Lists and to prepare nominations of properties from categories and regions currently not well-represented on the World Heritage List.

Analysis

A global study carried out by ICOMOS from 1987 to 1993 revealed that Europe, historic towns and religious monuments, Christianity, historical periods and ‘elitist’ architecture (in relation to vernacular) were all overrepresented on the World Heritage List; whereas, all living cultures, and especially ‘traditional cultures’, were under-represented.

At its 28th session in 2004, the World Heritage Committee reviewed more recent analysis of the World Heritage List and the Tentative Lists prepared by ICOMOS and IUCN. Both analyses were carried out on regional, chronological, geographical and thematic bases in order to evaluate the progress of the Global Strategy.

ICOMOS’s study found that the reasons for the gaps in the World Heritage List fall into two main categories:

Structural – relating to the World Heritage nomination process, and to managing and protecting cultural properties; and qualitative – relating to the way properties are identified, assessed and evaluated.

lUCN’s study pointed out that the natural and mixed sites currently inscribed on the World Heritage List cover almost all regions and habitats of the world with a relatively balanced distribution. However, there are still major gaps in the World Heritage List for natural areas such as: tropical/temperate grasslands, savannas, lake systems, tundra and polar systems, and cold winter deserts.

Ongoing efforts

Since the launching of the Global Strategy, 39 new countries have ratified the World Heritage Convention, many from small Pacific Island States, Eastern Europe, Africa and Arab States.

The number of countries around the globe that have signed the World Heritage Convention in the course of the last ten years has risen from 139 to 178. The number of States Parties who have submitted Tentative Lists complying with the format established by the Committee has grown from 33 to 132. New categories for World Heritage sites have also been promoted, such as the categories of cultural landscapes, itineraries, industrial heritage, deserts, coastal-marine and small-island sites.

Important conferences and thematic studies aimed at implementing the Global Strategy have been held in Africa, the Pacific and Andean subregions, the Arab and Caribbean regions, central Asia and south-east Asia. These well-focused studies have become important guides for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in these regions. In an effort to further enhance the under-represented categories of sites and improve geographical coverage, the World Heritage Committee has recently decided to limit the number of nominations that can be presented by each State Party and the number of nominations it will review during its session.

The World Heritage Committee works in co-operation with every State Party to the World Heritage Convention as well as its three Advisory Bodies: ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM [International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property], in order to make greater strides in diversifying the World Heritage List and make it truly balanced and representative of the world’s heritage.

(UNESCO, 1994)

The most important aims were seen as broadening the definitions of World Heritage, encouraging other countries to sign up, prepare lists or make nominations, especially of categories and regions poorly represented. These steps were obviously necessary because the list was dominated by the European ‘canon’ of (mainly) cultural sites. In contradistinction to the ‘canon’ the strategy advocated a more ‘representative sample’ of heritage sites on the list, improved geographical coverage and the promotion of new heritages. The two advisory NGOs, ICOMOS and IUCN, noted structural and qualitative problems, and the latter also saw major gaps, in particular types of natural environments that remained unrepresented. The outcome was that more countries signed up to the convention, helping the process of diversification.

This suggests much greater diversity in heritages – greater inclusion – but not necessarily a significant move away from essentially elite culture dominated by the European mind set – or at least that of the developed world. But it is obviously a slow process of change, not helped, even the international heritage professionals recognise, by the mountain of bureaucracy World Heritage represents.

Having examined something of the structures and processes in the development of World Heritage we move on to look at various types of heritage backed up with some case studies.

2.4.1 Natural heritage: large and small

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

With 174 natural and 25 ‘mixed’ sites out of 878 (in 2009), natural heritage is rather under-represented in the portfolio of World Heritage, at least if raw data are taken as a measure. While the scale and environmental or scientific qualities of many natural sites are such that it is difficult to say whether we are comparing like with like, there are other explanations for the imbalance. The first, it will be recalled, is the relative under-representation of natural heritage specialists on international NGOs; the second, that some countries have a long tradition of national parks or reserves along with legislative frameworks for environmental conservation, sometimes enacted long before it began to be addressed as a serious global issue. In some ways it is therefore surprising that natural sites are so well represented in the USA (and Canada), though in both contexts cultural sites were certainly less prominent than in Europe. In the USA, where national parks were pioneered by a Scot, John Muir, the justifications are highly nationalistic, as the following statement shows:

For those who seek to grasp the spirit of the nation and understand the vast array of disparate elements that is America, there is no better teacher than the U.S. National Park System. This is one of the country’s most valuable inheritances, held in trust for the citizens of the United States and nurtured for enjoyment by future generations.

National Pride, Global Significance

Through the national parks, the United States preserves its natural, cultural and historic heritage and offers to the world a window on the American experience. It also acts as steward to resources invaluable to the world.

The secretary of the interior, through the National Park Service, is responsible for identifying and nominating U.S. sites to the World Heritage list. Currently, there are 20 World Heritage sites in the United States, including two sites jointly administered with Canada. Among the U.S. preserves judged important to the entire world are Yosemite, Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, the Great Smoky Mountains and the Everglades.

In these and other wild places of North America, the U.S. National Park Service labours to carry forward naturalist John Muir’s dream, as expressed in 1901, to preserve ‘the beauty, grandeur, and all-embracing usefulness of our wild mountain forest reservations and parks, with a view to inciting the people to come and enjoy them, and get them into their hearts’.

(Bureau of International Information Programs, US Department of State, 2006)

While the political message is essentially subverted there is a strong emphasis, as one would expect, on the ‘spirit of the nation’ and preserving national identity, though quite where the Indigenous Americans (many displaced from their lands, including the national parks) fit in is not mentioned. As Harrison (2008) points out, settler colonies like the USA needed to emphasise the distance between natural and cultural heritage to promote the idea of ‘wilderness’ – a blank, apparently unoccupied country which apart from the politics would justify the historical and moral position of occupation.

The past too can be made to seem like a blank canvas, but with that said the parks are held in trust for the future and the authorities see themselves as custodians of nature on the grand scale. The wild, as Muir envisaged, is to be enjoyed by all; and there is an obligation on the National Park Service to promote his precepts. Certainly the national parks are well managed, attract large numbers and their contribution to the tourist economy in the USA is known to be substantial.

Elsewhere, for example in Asia or South America, are sites that cover vast areas, and consequently issues of protection, conservation and management which they share with cultural heritage are often more complex and, in crossing boundaries, are both highly political and genuinely transnational in scale.

The scale and ethos of natural heritage conservation in the UK may be rather different, but it does share many of these problems in microcosm, as can be appreciated from the case of the Dorset and East Devon Coast, a World Heritage site since 2001 (Figure 3). This site comprises more than 200 miles of undeveloped coastline and countryside, with cliff exposures and rock formations of international geological significance. Its status has had a number of valuable outcomes. First, it has raised awareness internationally, regionally, nationally and locally, generating enthusiasm and pride in the community, which in turn has brought together other sectors in support of initiatives.

Figure 3 Fossil at Undercliff, Lyme Regis, part of the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage site. Photographed by David Noble. Photo: © David Noble Photography/Alamy.

Second, it has helped protect the site by limiting planning applications for inappropriate development. Third, it has encouraged enhanced funding to manage the site, improve transport and develop tourist potential. The spinoffs have been extensive and are thought to have contributed greatly to the local economy, mainly through the large numbers of visitors attracted to the site.

2.4.2 Cultural landscapes

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

It is appropriate at this point to refer to another interesting concept in the World Heritage portfolio, the cultural landscape, which was influenced significantly by the long tradition of European landscape painting. A great variety of landscapes can be identified with distinctive regions of the earth. Invariably they combine a natural environment modified over the ages by humans, and they have become significant and often politically sensitive because they reflect specific techniques of land use that sustain biological diversity and are under threat from inappropriate development or climate change. Moreover, they are often associated with intangible heritages unique to the communities who live there; examples are religious beliefs, and artistic and traditional customs, perhaps reflecting the spiritual relationship of people with their environment.

In UNESCO’s view ‘cultural landscape’ embraces a diversity of interactions between humankind and its natural environment (see also West and Ndlovu, 2010). Cultural landscapes often reflect specific techniques of sustainable land use that take into consideration the characteristics and limits of the natural environment in which they are established, and a specific spiritual relation to nature. Protection of cultural landscapes can contribute to modern techniques of sustainable land use and can maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape. The continued existence of traditional forms of land use supports biological diversity in many regions of the world.

Three main types of cultural landscape can be identified, the first being the ‘intentional’ landscape, that is, one designed and created by human intervention. These landscapes include gardens and park landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons and sometimes associated with religious or other monumental buildings and ensembles. The second is the organically evolved landscape that may have developed for social, economic, administrative and/or religious reasons but that still retains a close relationship to its natural environment. Such landscapes reflect this process of evolution in their form and component features. Two interesting subgroups merit attention: there is the ‘relic’ (or fossil) landscape, where an evolutionary process came to an end at some point in the past, either abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material form. The other sub-group is the ‘continuing’ landscape, where an active social role in contemporary society is closely associated with traditional ways of life but where the evolutionary process is still underway (though this may actually fail to preserve the landscape itself). At the same time this landscape exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time. The third main type of cultural landscape is described as the ‘associative cultural landscape’, where significance arises from strong religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than from tangible cultural evidence which may be limited or indeed totally absent.

Politics is an important sub-text in examples which indicate the association of landscape heritage with specifically religious rights among tribal peoples. Two of the earliest cultural landscape designations are in the Australasian region: the Tongariro National Park in New Zealand and the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park in Australia (Figure 4), both essentially spiritual sites.

Figure 4 Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park World Heritage site, central Australia. Photographed by David Ball. Photo: © David Ball/Alamy.

Tongariro, inscribed in 1993, is an area of dramatic landscapes with active and extinct volcanoes and diverse natural environments. At the heart of the park are mountains with strong religious and cultural significance to the Maori people, a feature shared with Uluru, the immense monolith that dominates the vast sandy plains of Central Australia and is linked to belief systems. Clearly these are complex sites, tangible on the ground but at the same time linked to the imaginative and spiritual vitality of their peoples. In such cases cultural landscapes have close associations with the intangible heritage of the peoples involved. And although these examples are no longer under threat from inappropriate development, many others elsewhere are not in such a favourable position, particularly where political decisions often affect resource exploitation for minerals or timber.

2.4.3 Intangible heritage

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

The ICH is traditional and living at the same time.

(UNESCO, 2008b)

This brings us to another category, the ‘non-material’ intangible cultural heritage (ICH), which recognises the importance of living heritage, cultural diversity and its maintenance for the future as ‘a guarantee for continuing creativity’. It came about because of criticism from countries with significant oral, folklore and other cultural traditions where indigenous people thought the list dominated by built or material heritage. According to the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage, it is seen in what UNESCO describes as the following ‘domains’:

oral traditions and expressions including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage
performing arts (such as traditional music, dance and theatre)
social practices, rituals and festive events
knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe
traditional craftsmanship.

(UNESCO, 2008b)

Such heritage can be seen in the practices, representatives, expression, knowledge and skills that committees, groups and individuals define as part of their cultural heritage. Perhaps rather optimistically UNESCO sees ICH being transmitted from generation to generation, repeated in response to environment, the nature of its history, promoting identity and continuity, respecting cultural diversity and human creativity (as well as human rights), and promoting respect and sustainable development among communities.

Much is transmitted orally and practised collectively, and tradition bearers often have important roles. The open-ended nature of ICH means it is often the most endangered component in World Heritage due to globalisation and the relative lack of interest among the young, language being a prime example. Moreover, ICH is not necessarily fixed to specific communities, groups or individuals, because it can switch from one context to another. All of this raises significant issues as to what ICH actually is and how representative examples can be, but nevertheless several significant initiatives have been undertaken including listings, identifying ICH requiring ‘urgent safeguarding’ and a number of projects mainly focused on developing countries. Beyond these, steps to identify Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity got underway following a proclamation at the UNESCO General Conference in 1997 (see Harrison and Rose, 2010). Between 2001 and 2005, ninety outstanding examples of ICH were identified, including a wide range of phenomena similar to those described above.

One domain that has attracted particular attention is the safeguarding of endangered languages. This programme revealed some staggering and damning statistics about languages as tools of communication and views of the world. About 50 per cent of the world’s 6700 languages are in danger of disappearing. Moreover 96 per cent of the languages are spoken by 4 per cent of the global population; one language disappears every two weeks and 80 per cent of African languages have no orthography. UNESCO’s Intangible Heritage division supports an Endangered Languages Programme which aims to promote and protect linguistic diversity by such activities as assessing the extent of endangerment, raising awareness about the issues through publications and events, promoting community-based safeguarding projects particularly in Sub-Sahara Africa, and identifying good practice for the preservation of threatened languages and related cultures. A convention similar to that for cultural and natural heritages became operational in 2000.

Some work has also been done in developed countries where older and increasingly marginalised languages have been swamped by majority cultures. These cultures are being promoted in a whole range of contexts, the Celtic languages being an interesting case, seen, for example, in Brittany, Galicia, Cornwall, the Isle of Man, and the Scottish Highlands and Islands. In the last, the Scottish government has supported a project led by the Scottish Museums Council to assess the scope of ICH in Scotland, in particular the position of Gaelic language and culture, which is undergoing a revival.

Defining ICH is no easy matter; like serial and linear sites, it is transnational, and crosses political boundaries, cultures, kin groups and languages. It embraces a wide range of social practices, popular cultures and skills of many kinds. It is also dynamic, and though it derives much from the past (as do most other heritages), it is ‘living’ heritage. Hence, its vibrancy in many contexts needs to be contrasted with decline in others, raising many problems of record, preservation and promotion.

2.4.4 Other heritage categories

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

Other items from the growing World Heritage portfolio merit brief discussion. Diversification beyond major cultural and natural sites has resulted in some interesting permutations, such as linear features or ensembles of sites linked in different ways. Best known perhaps is the Camino de Santiago, the Pilgrim Way to Santiago de Campostela in Galicia, north-west Spain. The old city itself is a remarkable ensemble of Baroque cathedral, churches and civic buildings, designated a World Heritage site in 1985 and the object of a major conservation effort since (Figure 5). Described as ‘a journey of the soul and spirit’, the Pilgrim Way, also known as St James’s Way, is in fact several different trails along ancient route ways in France and Spain that all lead to the supposed shrine of St James in Santiago. Here the body of the fisherman and apostle is believed to have been laid to rest in the eighth century. The origins of the route date back to the time when Christian pilgrims, some from distant parts of Europe, would set off to visit and pray at the saint’s final resting place. It is one of the most important pilgrimages beyond those of Rome and Jerusalem and still attracts thousands each year to add to recreational walkers. The route is marked with a scallop shell, the symbol of the saint, and the way was declared a European Cultural Route in 1987 and a World Heritage site in 1993.

Figure 5 The cathedral, Santiago de Compostela. Photographed by David A. Barnes. Photo: © David A. Barnes/Alamy. The cathedral of Santiago de Compostela is a massive exercise in various architectural styles and forms the focus of the World Heritage site.

In sharp contrast perhaps, railways also fall into this category, prime examples being the mountain railways of India, first designated in 1999 and by extension again in 2005. The ‘site’ includes the famous Darjeeling mountain railway and now incorporates the Nilgiri line in Tamil Nadu state, another remarkable legacy of the colonial era constructed 1891–1908 and still fully operational.

A sub-set is what one consultant planner has described as ‘boundaries heritage’, which might be linked to cultural or historical landscapes encroached on by others, say through invasion. An interesting example is the initiative by the World Heritage Centre to define and promote the frontiers of the Roman empire transnationally across the Upper German-Raetian Limes and, in the UK, Hadrian’s Wall in northern England and the Antonine Wall (listed 2008), linking the Forth and Clyde in Central Scotland. Making excellent walking routes, all three incorporate important archaeological features such as forts, camps and civil settlements (often themselves linked by Roman roads or other historic routes).

2.5.1 Case study: Industrial heritage in New Lanark, Scotland

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

To counter the claims of some that World Heritage is mainly concerned with ancient civilisations and the heritage of dominant elites, World Heritage has also embraced objects, places and practices more closely identified with ordinary people living and working in an industrial world rather than earlier times. Although the famous Wieliczka salt mine in Poland, inscribed in 1978, was the only industrial World Heritage site until the listing of Ironbridge in 1986, the years since have seen a growth in the numbers of such sites internationally. Among them is New Lanark, a former cotton mill, which has inspired me since boyhood. Industrial heritage has its critics, most famously in the UK where Hewison (1987, especially pp. 41–7) explained its growth as a phenomenon reflecting past industrial and technical achievements in a climate of contracting manufacture and economic decline. Its rise, he thought, was partly a response to misplaced nostalgia for working-class life in communities undergoing rapid change and in some cases a response to the cataclysmic decline in heavy industries such as mining and metallurgy.

Despite the critique, and long before Hewison disseminated his ideas, I believed that the ‘gilt on the gingerbread approach’ to heritage needed revision and became involved in the promotion of industrial heritage in the UK, Australia and elsewhere. As co-editor of a journal devoted to industrial archaeology and history I came into contact with many practitioners committed to broadening the scope of heritage and over the years since have been involved with the team working on the restoration and promotion of New Lanark, one of a clutch of sites inscribed in 2000–1 (Historic Scotland, 2000). Its story illustrates the long-term trajectory that is often required to see such large-scale projects through to a successful conclusion. Even then, issues remain as to how such sites can be managed in future.

At first sight New Lanark looks like a piece of the early industrial revolution frozen in time, but its importance extends beyond the obvious to include important associations with Robert Owen, the social reformer, who used it as a test bed for his ideas (Figures 6 and 7). Moreover it is located near the Falls of Clyde, like the English Lakes, a major attraction for romantic tourists during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Donnachie, 2004). The mills, begun in 1785 by David Dale, a prominent Scottish business man, became the largest of their kind for the period, with a workforce of over 2000. The adjacent village, built into the valley sides, provided housing and other facilities for the workers, many recruited from the Scottish Highlands or the cities. Dale was widely celebrated for his philanthropy, particularly in his treatment of child apprentices recruited to work in his mills. While large factories with paternalistic regimes were unusual, New Lanark was already attracting large numbers of visitors, presumably reform-minded, including many from overseas.

Figure 6 New Lanark World Heritage site, showing the former Owen House (foreground) with the workers’ housing beyond. Photographed by Findlay. Photo: © Findlay/Alamy.

In 1799 Dale sold the mills to a Manchester firm and Owen, a youthful but successful entrepreneur, became manager. He introduced a raft of workplace and community reforms aimed at improving efficiency, raising productivity, and improving the environment and social conditions. By 1812 he was promoting popular education, in particular ‘character formation’ which would be a basis for social reform. His ideas found expression in his essay ‘A New View of Society’ (Owen, 2004) which proposed education as a means of improvement for the working classes, exemplified from his experience at New Lanark, and suggested a plan of social regeneration with national, indeed international, application. In the troubled times following the end of the Napoleonic War these ideas proved attractive to elites who felt threatened by disorder, and after 1817, apparently Owen’s ‘millennial moment’, he was describing an ambitious plan for ‘Villages of Unity and Mutual Co-operation’ as the basis for social recovery. In 1816 he opened his Institute for the Formation of Character, followed thereafter by a school. He also played a prominent role in factory reform. This frenzied activity and widespread propaganda made Owen famous and thousands descended on his community, though in declining numbers after 1825 when he quit New Lanark for another community experiment in the USA (Donnachie, 2004). Owen was always controversial, partly because of his attacks on sectarianism, which he saw as undermining his ‘New Moral World’ and the promotion of community and cooperation instead of competition. After 1830 the man became a movement with numerous Owenite organisations dedicated to advancing his ideas. In the end Owen made little headway, but his followers proved highly influential in almost every popular reform movement of the nineteenth century including the campaign for compulsory education.

Figure 7 New Lanark World Heritage site, showing (from the left) the former cotton mills, the rear elevation of Owen’s Institute, and Owen’s School for Children. Unknown photographer. Photo: © South West Images Scotland/ Alamy.

For more than a century after Owen’s death in 1858 people were attracted to New Lanark, which was seen as an icon for his ideas on industrial relations, corporate philanthropy, cooperation and social reform. Among the visitors were many from the USA and Japan, which helped maintain the profile of the place and may even have been an inducement to the owners to keep the village in a reasonable state of repair. Although the company and the local authorities were well aware of the village’s history, the challenge of refurbishment was beyond their resources. When the factory ultimately closed in 1968, the decay was rapid, though a housing association had started to modernise some of the workers’ housing and in 1971 gained a Civic Trust Award for this work and the first formal recognition of the village’s architectural importance. Unfortunately, as is often the case, an unsympathetic industry, in this case scrap metal extraction, moved in on the mills and the threat to their future was soon obvious. The turning point came in 1973–4 with the establishment of the New Lanark Conservation Trust, which thanks to local and national support acquired the mills and began the painstaking task of restoration. New Lanark, like many other heritage projects of the period, became a significant player in employment creation, with a major multiplier effect on the local economy.

Work began on the housing, with a mix of rented apartments controlled by the housing association and other tenement blocks restored by private owners to designated plans drawn up by the conservation trust. The communal buildings, including Owen’s Institute and School for Children were then restored, while the mills were converted to offices with large areas devoted to a museum and interpretation facilities. In the centre of the village, several of the rooms in Owen’s house were restored in period fashion. The basement contains an interpretation devoted to his community experiment at New Harmony in the USA and later ventures in Owenism. Across the street a tenement house was left with its original fittings to display the contrasting living conditions of a typical mill family. The company store was retained to emphasise Owen’s concern for fair trade, connection to consumer cooperation and use of profits for the school. The first of Dale’s mills, Mill No. 1, was converted to a hotel, which ultimately boasted a conference centre and comprehensive leisure facilities, while a youth hostel opened in one of the tenement blocks at the southern end of the village. A turbine that drove the machinery in the mills now powers the whole complex and New Lanark is also a net exporter to the national grid. Latterly the trust was assisted by European and Heritage Lottery funding and the Scottish government.

A World Heritage nomination was put forward in 1986 and after a gap of many years (being included in the Tentative List of 1999) the site was inscribed in 2001 (Historic Scotland, 2000). First Minister for Scotland Donald Dewar believed New Lanark had waited too long, and was instrumental in successfully promoting its case. The restoration of the mills and village was thus a long-term project of over 40 years’ duration but it has brought enormous benefits (Arnold, 2000; Donnachie and Hewitt, 1999). Revitalisation has had a major impact on the local community and region with Lanark itself the object of building restorations and streetscape schemes, major housing projects, a new green-field agricultural market and the inevitable retail parks. The new developments have, however, put a major strain on infrastructure, notably access roads and other utilities. Some think that New Lanark has received too much attention and investment at the expense of other local projects, a common problem it seems when professionals move in on heritage sites.

Last, although New Lanark does not suffer from the ‘pain and shame’ of ‘difficult heritage’, it presents interesting problems of interpretation largely arising from the controversies surrounding Robert Owen. While these are more about history than heritage, they present interesting issues. How and why was a successful capitalist and corporate philanthropist reinvented as the ‘Father of Socialism’ and what part did New Lanark play in the story? Some of the answers are to be found in the place itself, which beyond interpretation presents many issues of site policy and management common to such monuments.

Reflecting on the case study

New Lanark has been an enormous success and has gained many plaudits and awards for the long-term commitment of its trust and management to restoration. At the time of writing it attracts 350,000 or more visitors per annum, approximately a quarter paying for entry to its attractions. The hotel, conference centre and other facilities are also very successful, and there is a vigorous programme of cultural and other events. There is a strong relationship with bodies promoting the splendid environment and natural history, notably the Scottish Wildlife Trust, which has a visitor centre in the village. New Lanark strikes an interesting balance in the way it presents itself, from its ideological links to workers’ welfare, socialism and the cooperative movement on the one hand, to management psychology and corporate philanthropy on the other. The associations with Robert Owen give New Lanark a unique dimension since interest in his ideas on industrial relations, education, welfare, cooperation, citizenship and environment have resonance with modern global problems. Indeed, Owen and New Lanark seem to transcend the political divide for this very reason. But with that said, New Lanark presents a range of issues about management and interpretation typical of industrial heritage everywhere.

A further interesting spin-off from World Heritage is the World Heritage City, the earliest designations including Kracow (Poland), Quito (Ecuador), Monastir (Tunisia) and Stockholm (Sweden) in 1978. Subsequent designations have created a list of 242 (at the time of writing), of which more than half are located in Europe and North America. Another international organisation set up to service and promote these cities (independent of UNESCO), the Organization of World Heritage Cities (OWHC), is based in Quebec, Canada. Some of these cities are less familiar than others and it would be interesting to know how they made it on to the list (Organization of World Heritage Cities, 2008). Bath and Edinburgh, splendid Georgian creations, have Remarkable architectural heritages of that period as well as histories of importance pre-dating the 1700s by many centuries. Together they provide useful examples of heritage cities and the issues they raise.

2.5.2 Case study: World Heritage Cities in Bath and Old and New Towns of Edinburgh

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

Bath has been a World Heritage site since 1987, recognised as a place of outstanding universal value for its ensemble of architecture, town planning, landscape, archaeological remains and its interesting social history as a place of resort. The history of the place extends over 2000 years, and consequently Bath displays a fascinating array of remains including archaeological evidence of pre-Roman use of the hot springs and the Roman spa itself (Figure 8), medieval relics, the impressive Georgian city, civic buildings, parks, gardens and streetscapes. More recent heritage includes Brunei’s Great Western Railway with its station buildings and structures, all situated in a magnificent natural landscape. The history of the city is presented and interpreted through a range of museums and galleries devoted to specific aspects of the city’s past, including a Georgian house given over to a museum celebrating the life and times of Jane Austen, one-time resident of the city in its heyday as a place of fashionable resort. (Incongruously Austen had mixed feelings about Bath, though it features prominently in several of her novels.)

Figure 8 The Roman Baths, City of Bath World Heritage City. Unknown photographer. Photo: © Travelshots.com/Alamy.

Like Edinburgh, as a heritage city Bath is clearly a major cultural and economic asset, with a population of 84,000 people: it is a significant regional centre for employment, shopping, entertainment and education. As an international tourist destination, it attracts nearly 4 million visitors per annum, emphasising the close relationship between the heritage and the success of the modern city. The spa, object of a multimillion pound re-development, continues in use for health and leisure. Maintaining economic performance and vibrancy in the community is seen by the local authorities as essential for the long-term protection of the city’s heritage, which in its turn gives Bath a unique and much-celebrated character. How this is to be sustained in the future is explained in the management plan, briefly summarised as follows:

The Management Plan aims to provide a framework to conserve the cultural heritage assets of the World Heritage Site of Bath. This wide remit includes protection and enhancement of the architectural, archaeological, landscape and natural assets and their urban and landscape settings, improving understanding of the site, its interpretation and use as an educational resource, and supporting the local community in its cultural, social and economic vitality.

The plan will outline the main issues that challenge the World Heritage Site and the potential opportunities of that status. These issues will be addressed through a series of objectives and actions, specifically intended to fulfil the main aims of the plan. These are:

Promote sustainable management of the World Heritage Site;
Ensure that the unique qualities and outstanding universal values of the World Heritage Site are understood and are sustained in the future;
Sustain the outstanding universal values of the World Heritage Site whilst maintaining and promoting Bath as a living and working city which benefits from the status of the World Heritage Site;
Improve physical access and interpretation, encouraging all people to enjoy and understand the World Heritage Site;
Improve public awareness of and interest and involvement in the heritage of Bath, achieving a common local, national and international ownership of World Heritage Site Management.

(Bath and North East Somerset Council, 2008)

This wide remit emphasises the problems of managing complex heritage sites – particularly the balancing of conservation and development, which is especially challenging in the urban context and evidently an ongoing issue in the city.

The Old and New Towns of Edinburgh site (Figure 9) faces similar dilemmas and its website is enlightening in this regard. It seems there are many points of comparison, at least in statements that recognise the challenges and threats, and set out policies to preserve and enhance the site. The plan, like that of Bath, identifies key features, like the unique setting overlooking the Firth of Forth, a dramatic castle perched above the city centre, the contrasting architecture of the medieval Old Town and Georgian New Town, and the history and heritage of Scotland’s ancient capital. Challenges and opportunities abound, for example raising funds for restoration of buildings with diverse functions throughout the designated area, the need to promote the use of traditional materials that are becoming very hard to obtain, and the constant threats arising from inappropriate development. Edinburgh World Heritage has also had to balance the needs of conservation in the New Town with those of the Old Town, which before the eighteenth-century expansion constituted the core of the city. There the Royal Mile links the Castle on its rock with the Palace and Abbey of Holyrood at its foot, now also the location of the Scottish Parliament. After many decades of decay preservation has been a priority for an area that is a major tourist magnet in a tourist city. But the plan is not only about preservation, it is also about promoting Edinburgh as a ‘thriving, dynamic, economically successful city’. We might finally note that the plan is supported by a wide range of bodies including the Scottish government, the City of Edinburgh Council, Historic Scotland and various enterprise agencies. What happens in Edinburgh is of considerable consequence politically, and developments there, particularly in terms of policy and the funding of heritage projects, are watched with interest throughout Scotland (Edinburgh World Heritage, 2008; Rodwell, 2007).

Figure 9 The Old Town of Edinburgh (left), linked by North Bridge to the eighteenth-century planned New Town (right). Unknown photographer. Photo: © World Pictures/Alamy.

Reflecting on the case study

Would Bath and Edinburgh ever be anything other than highly attractive places, since they have been attracting visitors for several centuries in modern times and were significant places from antiquity? What benefits has World Heritage status brought that would not have been promoted in the usual course of events? Some injudicious developments, notably shopping complexes, have been allowed in both places, though World Heritage status has perhaps prevented the worst excesses. In reality it is very difficult to see how such complex sites can be managed because of the competing interests of conservation and development (Rodwell, 2007).

In both instances there are also interesting issues of interpretation of the ways in which elite culture was promoted and sustained historically by the middle and upper classes at the expense of the labouring classes in these cities, with large numbers employed in construction, shop work, domestic and other services. In Bath’s interpretation the army of servants found above and below stairs in the great resort era seems to be essentially subverted in favour of elites. Edinburgh presents an interesting juxtaposition of the formerly poverty-stricken Old Town tenements with the fine Georgian terraces of the New Town to the north. And while much is made of the Scottish capital’s ancient history (especially at the Castle and at Holyrood Palace), the Scottish Enlightenment, driven by educated elites of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, is perhaps more prominent, at least in the city’s institutions. Of course, in some ways, Edinburgh is an exceptional case given its capital city status, long significant in its political, cultural and economic standing, and even more so since the opening of the Scottish Parliament.

Is World Heritage City status driven by the tourist agenda? There is undoubtedly a sense of competition among traditional tourist cities that feel if they do not achieve World Heritage status they will be overlooked for somewhere else as a tourist destination. Both these cities rely on tourism as a major contributor to their economies, so their status is undoubtedly of great importance and value.

This brings us briefly to the role of World Heritage in wider social and economic regeneration and in cultural tourism, itself an enormous topic with a substantial literature (for example Smith and Robinson, 2006; Timothy and Boyd, 2003). It has been suggested that World Heritage sites are perceived as the new ‘Seven Wonders of the World’ (multiplied many times over), and that listing substantially affects the attraction of sites as tourist destinations and boosts local economies in the process. Here, as in many other places in this book, it is evident that this is one of the most significant aspects of heritage beyond its obvious function of restoration and conservation. It also helps to explain why World Heritage is so highly political.

2.5.3 Case study: World Heritage and the economy in Tarragona, Spain

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

Tarragona, south of Barcelona, has undergone a period of regeneration and repositioning thanks to World Heritage listing (UNESCO, 2008c). The most significant urban centre in Roman Iberia, it shows many layers of occupation through to the present, with modern excavations revealing the most important Roman urban town planning and remains in Spain (Figure 10). The excavated buildings, in varying states of repair and accessibility, have been developed as spectacular cultural sites, now attracting large numbers of visitors. Restoration is being undertaken as appropriate, extending in time from the pre-Roman to a substantial medieval legacy, including the cathedral and other ancient buildings overlooking the main World Heritage site. Much of the old city is surrounded by a wall, often incorporating later buildings, and forming part of a heritage walk where the wall can be readily and safely accessed. A range of a interpretations, including a remarkable model housed in a restored medieval building near the cathedral, show the extent of the Roman city, its harbour, shipyards and workshops, and its leisure facilities including circus, chariot-racing track and other features. Excavations at a variety of stages and locations can also be observed by visitors, while an older and very fine classical museum packed with the discoveries of earlier excavations has been revitalised (Museu d’Història de Tarragona, 2008; Museu Nacional Arquelògic de Tarragona, 2008).

Figure 10 Aqueduct in Tarragona World Heritage site. Photographed by Schütze/Rodemann. Photo: © Bildarchiv Monheim GmbH/Alamy.

Tarragona, already a major tourist destination from the surrounding costas and resorts, has enthusiastically re-invented itself as a cultural destination. Higher education has expanded, leading to the growth of the local university, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, which increasingly attracts large numbers of international students and conferences. The Catalonian government and the Tarragona provincial authorities together with scholars have played a major role in these initiatives. The reaction of locals, I can testify, is generally favourable, since the spin-offs in new kinds of tourism are self-evident. However regeneration has probably brought mixed benefits to some locals and the immigrant community, since heritage projects absorb funds that might otherwise be deployed on housing and other social facilities (a common problem elsewhere, and in Tarragona’s case being partially addressed by its structure plan described briefly below). Nonetheless World Heritage status has been a springboard for urban regeneration, perhaps not on the scale of Barcelona to the north, but certainly impressive.

One of the more ambitious schemes arising is the proposal to restore the historical seafront, connecting it again to much of the archaeological ensemble that constitutes the World Heritage site. Beyond the Roman and medieval remains, visible and invisible, later elements have left their mark on Tarragona: extensive urban development, the port, the railway and industrial areas. While always of some importance to the local economy, large-scale industrialisation did not occur until the 1960s and 1970s with the development of a petrochemical complex linked to the port, which has become one of the main cargo-handling ports in the Mediterranean. Since tourism is the other major industry in Tarragona and its region, it is obvious that a tricky balance needs to be maintained between these two key sectors of the economy. Local planners describe Tarragona as being a city out of balance with itself, so the strategic objectives aim to rectify this using heritage as one of the main platforms. According to the strategic objectives the historical and archaeological heritage, rather than being seen in isolation, should be linked to cultural landscapes and natural heritage in and beyond the city, creating an urban inter-city archaeological route that links the different monuments and sites in a cohesive way. Heritage protection can be enhanced by a detailed inventory identifying much that remains hidden under layers of occupation since Roman times, as well as by classification of monuments by age, accessibility and state of repair, and the histories of excavations and finds. All of this presents enormous challenges when the structure plan proposes the recovery of the seafront by either covering or re-routing the railway and removing other buildings which all act as barriers between parts of the city and the coast.

There is no question that World Heritage status is contributing to a major repositioning of tourism in Tarragona. As everywhere in Catalonia local and national pride is uppermost, with a strong emphasis on the links to intangible heritage, notably language and culture; in Tarragona this finds expression in a series of annual festivals famous throughout Spain and beyond.

Reflecting on the case study

Tarragona is a good example of World Heritage driving both the repositioning of an urban regional economy and the development of cultural-educational tourism. Unlike other heritage cities such as Liverpool, Glasgow and Belfast, Tarragona itself is a relatively new industrial centre, but the same challenges of balancing different strategic objectives are evident. At the same time it has substantial advantages in its location close to major tourist areas, also dating from the mid-twentieth century, and also near Barcelona, which began its revitalisation earlier and provided something of a model for Tarragona. Like Edinburgh and Bath, it has many of the advantages of a smaller city, the cohesiveness of its archaeological and historic sites in a spectacular location, plus the potential to link these to other economic and cultural developments. At the time of writing a useful start has been made and the strategic plan promises well for the future. As in the examples of New Lanark, Bath and Edinburgh, local, regional and national politics have played a key role both in gaining World Heritage status and in the exploitation of that cachet for the future development of the economy.

2.6 The effect of World Heritage

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

Thanks to the work of UNESCO and its associated NGOs since the 1970s, World Heritage is a well-established international concept administered by a formidable army of technocrats. The rise of World Heritage has been responsible for the rescue and conservation of numerous monuments to human values and endeavour and to large areas of unique natural environment and landscape across the globe. It has promoted heritages that have previously been neglected, for example rescuing cultures and languages that would otherwise have disappeared. It has promoted heritage cities, contributing to their regeneration in some cases, and, directly or indirectly, major world sites for cultural tourism. World Heritage has considerable implications for cultural tourism and increasingly for eco-tourism, which are major studies in their own right. There is no question that UNESCO and the other heritage NGOs have dramatically raised the profile of global heritage and are continuously seeking to redefine heritage beyond its previous Eurocentred and essentially western viewpoints. This now assists less developed regions of the world to raise their game in the World Heritage stakes.

The many positive aspects of World Heritage are perhaps countered by numerous issues about its politics, protocols and impact. The opportunities to follow up on World Heritage are enormous, through both virtual and actual visits to see what makes a site distinctive enough to obtain such status, and to assess what has been achieved in its protection, restoration, conservation, presentation and interpretation, how it impacts on the local/regional community and economy, and many other generic questions arising from the case studies cited here. Having studied this material, it should be possible to visit as more than a tourist, and to deploy a critical eye and useful skills.

Having read the chapter, you should now have a fairly good understanding of the origins of the World Heritage List and the functions of the various groups that are involved in nominating and assessing sites for inclusion on the list.

Activity 2

15 minutes

Take some time to review what you have learnt about the World Heritage List and the World Heritage Convention by looking at the full text of the World Heritage Convention.

What, briefly, are the main aims of the Convention? List them in your Learning Journal.

Discussion

The Convention and its programme aim to encourage countries to ratify and endorse its objects to catalogue, name and conserve sites of cultural or natural importance to the common heritage of humanity. Under certain conditions, listed sites can obtain funds from the World Heritage Fund. The Convention also aims to promote World Heritage and develop appropriate educational programmes. What other details did you pick out? Note them for future reference. I’m sure we could regard these aims as highly laudable, but you might think fulfilment is potentially complex (and perhaps costly). However, there are benefits to ratifying the Convention and to having sites listed on the World Heritage List. We will explore some of these further in the next activity.

3 Case study

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

The Lake District is a rural area located in the north-west of England encompassing a series of lakes and mountains (or ‘fells’) and containing England’s largest national park, the Lake District National Park. The Lake District also contains Scafell Pike, the highest mountain in England. The area is associated with the writings of a number of early nineteenth-century Romantic poets, including William Wordsworth, Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Robert Southey. Wordsworth’s famous poem, ‘I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud’, was written about the daffodils growing on the shores of Lake Ullswater. The Lake District has been a popular tourist destination since the late eighteenth century, and remains a popular place for recreation as well as nature conservation. Its complex layers of heritage value are comprised of its literary associations, its natural beauty, its recreational values and its geographical, ecological and biological diversity. There are also specific ‘industrial heritage’ trails in parts of the Lake District that relate to slate and iron mining. Indeed, its industrial heritage is something of a surprise to some visitors.

When this audio piece was recorded, the Lake District was on the Tentative World Heritage List (it was added to the tentative list in 1997). Those involved in the bid were in the process of trying to prove to UNESCO that the Lake District meets certain criteria which demonstrate its outstanding universal values. If successful, it will achieve the status of World Heritage site in 2012, in which case it would become one of the largest and most complex World Heritage sites and the first ‘cultural landscape‘ World Heritage site in England.

Listen to ‘Lake District 1’ (duration 14 minutes), linked below. Pay particular attention to the ways in which each of the contributors defines the significance of the Lake District, and what they suggest the benefits of World Heritage listing might be for the Lake District. You might like to take a look at the website of the Lake District World Heritage Project for an update on where the World Heritage bid is up to now, and to see some images of the area. Some images of the Lake District landscape are available below.

Interactive content appears here. Please visit the website to use it.

Download

Lake District 1

Long description

Figure 12 Lake Windermere, looking north. Photographed by Paul Broadbent. Photo: © Paul Broadbent/Alamy. [view enlarged image]

Long description

3.1 The Lake District as World Heritage

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

Clearly the process of raising a World Heritage nomination is both expensive and time consuming. However, both your course book reading and the voices of those involved in the Lake District nomination mention the benefits for countries ratifying the World Heritage Convention, and for those sites themselves that are listed on the World Heritage List.

Activity 3

15 minutes

Read the Benefits of Ratification on the UNESCO World Heritage Centre website.

Reviewing this, what are the key benefits for countries arising from ratification of the World Heritage Convention? And what particular benefits do you see as having particular relevance for the Lake District World Heritage nomination?

Discussion

The overarching benefit of World Heritage listing, as far as I can see, is being part of a global community dedicated to conserving international cultural and natural heritage. The main rewards I can see are:

sharing a commitment to a heritage legacy
raising awareness about preservation in localities and regions
access to funding via the World Heritage Centre, especially for threatened sites (they produce a list of threatened World Heritage sites, which you might like to take a look at in your revision time)
development of management plans for sites and training in heritage conservation and promotion
the prestige of inscription of national sites
economic development, especially sustainable (cultural and environmental) tourism.

Once more reflecting UN principles, there is a strong element of international cooperation and goodwill reflected here, plus the obvious influence of World Heritage accolade(s) on funding, investment and, ultimately, the potential contribution to the economy through tourism.

The particular benefits that were mentioned by the contributors to ‘Lake District 1’ were:

‘international recognition’ of the special qualities of the place
the promotion of more environmentally aware tourism
a recognition of the inter-connection between people and the landscape
the benefits that would accompany the management of the Lake District as a World Heritage site.

4 Conclusion

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

You should now have a clear understanding of the history of the World Heritage Convention and the World Heritage List, and the selection criteria that are used to justify the inclusion of items on the list. You have also begun to take a critical approach to the concept of World Heritage by undertaking a close critical reading of the Venice Charter, World Heritage Convention, and the World Heritage Criteria for Selection.

I hope that several linked concepts have become clear to you. Heritage is not, as many believe, so much about the past as it is about the present. Heritage looks to the past, but it is something that is produced in the present for a particular purpose within human groups and societies. Following on from this idea is the concept that heritage is a form of ‘representation’, which has the potential both to include and exclude certain members of society. When we talk about heritage as a form of representation, we refer to the way in which heritage objects, places and practices come to ‘stand for’ something else, whether that be an idealised sense of nationhood and its citizens, an ethnic group, or a particular set of histories and ideas about the past. For this reason, heritage is also about the power to control the past and to produce it in the present. In western societies, heritage is connected with a series of authorised heritage discourses (AHDs), which are tied up in the various official texts and charters by which heritage is managed.

Next steps

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

After completing this unit you may wish to study another OpenLearn Study Unit or find out more about this topic. Here are some suggestions:

If you wish to study formally at The Open University, you may wish to explore the courses we offer in this curriculum area:

or find out about studying and developing your skills with The Open University

or you might like to:

Post a message to the unit forum, to share your thoughts about the unit or talk to other OpenLearners
Review or add to your Learning Journal
Rate this unit

Glossary

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

criteria: in heritage terms, a list of conditions that must be met prior to listing on a statutory heritage register, such as the World Heritage List
cultural heritage: object, place or practice of heritage which is of human origin. The term is often used by way of contrast with natural heritage
cultural landscape: humanly modified landscape believed to be of importance due to the interplay of natural and cultural influences. A distinct category of cultural landscape was recognised in the revisions to the World Heritage Convention in 1992
ethnographic: scientific description of human groups (economy, society, culture), foundation method of anthropology as the comparative study of human groups
inscription: the identification and description of a heritage object, place or practice in order to confer legal protection. Sometimes the term ‘designation’ is used
natural heritage: plants, animals, landscape features and biological and geological processes which are not humanly modified. The term is most often used in opposition to cultural heritage
nomination: the process by which places are put forward for listing on a heritage register
restoration: in heritage parlance, returning something to an earlier condition, sometimes involving the removal of later additions or alterations and the replacement of lost elements
significance: in heritage terms, the relative importance of one heritage object, place or practice when compared with another
World Heritage Convention: The Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972, which established the World Heritage List and the process for listing World Heritage sites
World Heritage List: list of places considered by the World Heritage Committee to have outstanding universal value. The list was established by the 1972 World Heritage Convention
World heritage sites: places listed on the World Heritage List

Acknowledgements

The Open University — Thu, 19 May 2011 14:10:58 GMT

This unit was written by Ian Donnachie and Dr Rodney Harrison

Figure 2: Sandstone head of Ramses II being moved to be reassembled at the new site of Abu Simbel, 1966. Photographed by Terrence Spencer. Photo: © Terrence Spencer/Time and Life Pictures/Getty Images.

Figure 3: Fossil at Undercliff, Lyme Regis, part of the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage site. Photographed by David Noble. Photo: © David Noble Photography/Alamy.

Figure 4: Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park World Heritage site, central Australia. Photographed by David Ball. Photo: © David Ball/Alamy.

Figure 5: The cathedral, Santiago de Compostela. Photographed by David A. Barnes. Photo: © David A. Barnes/Alamy. The cathedral of Santiago de Compostela is a massive exercise in various architectural styles and forms the focus of the World Heritage site.

Figure 6: New Lanark World Heritage site, showing the former Owen House (foreground) with the workers’ housing beyond. Photographed by Findlay. Photo: © Findlay/Alamy.

Figure 7: New Lanark World Heritage site, showing (from the left) the former cotton mills, the rear elevation of Owen’s Institute, and Owen’s School for Children. Unknown photographer. Photo: © South West Images Scotland/ Alamy.

Figure 9: The Old Town of Edinburgh (left), linked by North Bridge to the eighteenth-century planned New Town (right). Unknown photographer. Photo: © World Pictures/Alamy.

Figure 10: Aqueduct in Tarragona World Heritage site. Photographed by Schütze/Rodemann. Photo: © Bildarchiv Monheim GmbH/Alamy.

Don't miss out

1. Join the 200,000 students currently studying with The Open University.

2. Enjoyed this? Browse all our free course materials in the LearningSpace.

3. Find out more about this topic on OpenLearn.