THE ART NEWSPAPER Number 240, November 201260

FEATURES

ABU

SIM

BEL:

OLA

F TA

USCH

With Aleppo’sMedieval souks stillsmouldering andTimbuktu’s ancientSufi shrines hackedto pieces, it’s worthrecalling theCroatian writer

Slavenka Drakulic’s words on the 1993 destruc-tion of Mostar’s Ottoman bridge: “Why”, sheasked, “do we feel more pain looking at theimage of the destroyed bridge in Mostar than theimage of the massacred people?” We expect peo-ple to be mortal, she suggests, but, “the destruc-tion of a monument to civilisation is somethingelse. [The bridge] was an attempt to grasp eter-nity. It transcended our individual destiny.”

Drakulic’s words encapsulate the importanceof heritage in understanding our place and iden-tity in the world. It seems self-evident today yetthis is a youthful concept. True, the contempo-rary notion of patrimony has its roots in thedamage caused to monuments during the FrenchRevolution and for the next 200 years heritagewas largely viewed through the lens of unsuc-cessful attempts to keep it off limits in wars. Itwasn’t until 1972, however, that Unesco agreedthe World Heritage Convention, which set up apeacetime framework for global heritage protec-tion for places of “outstanding universal value”to mankind. The impetus was the campaign tosave Abu Simbel and other Nubian monumentsfrom drowning in the rising waters of the man-made Lake Nasser. Relocation of the templestones began in 1964 with the Temple of Dendur

going to New York’s Metropolitan Museum ofArt as a gift from Egypt in appreciation for USassistance in the temples’ rescue.

The World Heritage Convention, along witha slew of other international conventions,should also be seen as a product of war, says theconservationist John Hurd. “There was a fantas-tic fear after the Second World War. The conven-tion was largely put together for the sake ofworld peace,” he says. “This still counts and theUN discusses it continually.”

Adoption of the 1972 Convention Concerningthe Protection of the World Cultural and NaturalHeritage linked for the first time the concepts ofnature conservation and cultural properties asWorld Heritage Sites. The convention is governedby the World Heritage Committee, made up ofrepresentatives of signatory countries or “stateparties”, serviced by its Paris secretariat, theWorld Heritage Centre. It is advised by voluntaryexperts from non-governmental organisations,principally the International Council on

Monuments and Sites (Icomos) for cultural mat-ters and the International Union forConservation of Nature (Icun) on natural sites.

In 1978, the Galápagos Islands was the firstheritage site listed. Fourteen years later, 377sites had been agreed. While the foundingfathers of the convention may only have had 100global icons in mind, there are now almost 1,000sites and the 190th country—Singapore—hasbecome a state party, one of the very lastnations to sign up. Of the 1,000 sites, 745 are cul-tural, 189 natural and 29 mixed.

Unesco under fireA huge success then. Except that Unesco isunder ever more fierce criticism for its handlingof the World Heritage programme; from thepro-development lobby for its interference inWestern planning decisions and from some con-servationists who argue that Unesco is toothlessin the face of conflicts ravaging heritage sitesfrom Syria to Timbuktu and that the organisa-tion’s site listing system is undermined by thepoliticisation of the process. It is also virtuallypenniless.

Last year, Britain’s international develop-ment secretary, Andrew Mitchell, issued a “yel-low card” saying the organisation wasted money

and failed to show concrete outcomes. PaulFinch, the ex-chair of the UK’s Commission forArchitecture & the Built Environment recentlylaunched a broadside in the Architects’ Journalunder the headline: “It’s time for French bullyUnesco to stop interfering with our heritagesites,” specifically those in London andLiverpool, and concluding, “RememberWaterloo!” The architect Rem Koolhaas and hispractice, OMA, has also been touring the worldwith an exhibition decrying heritage controls:“A huge section of our world (about 12%),” saysOMA, “is now off limits, submitted to regimeswe don’t know, have not thought through, can-not influence… World Heritage Sites couldbecome an increasingly populous and con-stantly expanding archipelago of states.” Thefigures are specious and include huge areas ofsea as well as land (the Great Barrier Reef, forexample) but the argument struck a cord.

All sides acknowledge that the early culturalsite list reflected Western heritage values andthe iconic monuments of kings and bishops anddid not include enough representative sitesfrom developing countries or those representa-tive of ordinary people’s lives. Most partiesaccept too that this situation has improved butit needs to change further as more nations build

their capacity to nominate and manage sites.There has also been an increasing awareness ofintangible heritage, such as songs and cere-mony, and of the need to ensure the authentic-ity of heritage but disagreement on how largethe list should be and how far beyond the won-ders of the world to secondary sites the conven-tion should reach.

The politics of listingJohn Hurd, the president of Icomos’s advisorycommittee and the head of conservation for theUS-based Global Heritage Fund, says that thetotal adds up to about five World Heritage Sitesper signatory. Italy has the most at 47, BurkinaFaso just one. “The originators of the conven-tion would have been pleased to see it realise1,000. Even if you went back to 1972, peoplewere of the opinion that it might climb up to3,000 sites. It should be expanded,” Hurd says.

He acknowledges, though, that the processhas become more politicised, with lobbying lead-ing to sites being listed by the committee againstthe advice of its advisory bodies—often for rea-sons of chasing the tourist dollar. Shifts inregional power and alliances, and emergingissues, such as the rise in museology in theMiddle East versus Islamic precepts regarding

World Heritage at 40:success or mess?Some conservationists say Unesco is toothless and penniless and has become too political By Rob Bevan

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

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

representation in art have also contributed tothe increased politicisation of the listing process.

Susan MacDonald, the head of field projects atthe Getty Conservation Institute agrees: “Theadvisory committee has become more political.Rather than a committee of heritage experts, rep-resentatives are more often administrators. Thishas made for less knowledge-based decisions.”Corruption also undoubtedly occurs; one egre-gious example is a groups of Malaysian politi-cians connection to the building of resorts in theGunung Mulu National Park. Unesco doesn’t havemany sanctions to impose beyond bad publicity.It can put a site on its list of places in danger, orthreaten to de-list a World Heritage property. Thelatter has only happened twice: Dresden was de-listed after a bridge was built across the Elbe inthe face of Unesco objections, and the Arabianoryx sanctuary in Oman was removed at its owngovernment’s request after it decided to shrink itby 90%.

But it is when the convention’s representa-tives challenge developments in Western citiesthat the most anti-Unesco feeling is provoked.Unesco’s sabre rattling in the UK’s direction hasbeen increasing in volume of late—about mas-sive development schemes on Liverpool’s water-front, and in Edinburgh and particularly inLondon, first over office developments close tothe Tower of London and more recently propos-als for towers by Waterloo Station, which oppo-nents say will adversely affect the setting of theWestminster World Heritage Site.

Paul Finch, the editorial director of Architects’Journal, argues that trying to protect such a widesetting in a global city would lead to urban sta-sis and that Unesco is an undemocratic bodythrowing its weight about. “The idea thatEnglish Heritage is not protecting WorldHeritage Sites, or that government policy issomehow ignoring them, is demonstrable non-sense,” he says. “They have been identified asbeing significant long before Unesco noticed

them and made travel agents happy. It is thesort of thinking that will turn dynamic worldcities like London into dead zones.” Finch main-tains that the body has turned its gaze on theWest as a sop to developing countries irritatedby being repeatedly told of their heritage man-agement shortcomings.

Francesco Bandarin was for a decade thedirector of the World Heritage Centre beforebeing promoted to Unesco’s assistant director-general for culture. He rejects Finch’s claims.“We don’t make distinctions, if heritage valuesare threatened, we intervene, whether in adeveloped or ‘emerging’ country. Countries withmore developed planning systems should havefewer problems protecting their heritage, but isthis true? We’ve had critical cases in Vienna,London, Cologne, Seville, St Petersburg, Riga, tocite only a few,” Bandarin says.

“We are firmly against an oppositionbetween conservation and development,”

Bandarin adds. “We always look at the needs ofcities and communities, and we have recentlyadopted a new recommendation on the historicurban landscape to address properly the needfor harmonising urban conservation and devel-opment. [But] there is no obligation to be on theWorld Heritage List, it’s a choice of the commu-nities and of governments. This is what buildsthe credibility of the list.”

The world heritage consultant, JukkaJokilehto, asks why London isn’t using its power:“If the Mayor of London has said that the Towerof London will not have skyscrapers around it,why is something else now happening? Why arethe British forgetting their inheritance?”

Andrew Croft, the head of heritage at theconstruction services giant Atkins agrees. “TheUK and many other developed countries haveused the excuse that their planning systems arefair to avoid scrutiny. Now that scrutiny hasstarted, issues are beginning to emerge such asthe influence that major economic development

outcomes can have on democratically electedcouncillors making the decisions,” he says.

But in a tussle where bad publicity is the onlyweapon available (there are no statutory powersrelating to heritage sites in the UK or in mostother countries), Sue Miller, the president ofIcomos’s International Scientific Committee forCultural Tourism, thinks that the heritage sectorcould come off worse. “Paul Finch has a point,”Miller says. “We need to become high-profilebrokers and not as we are perceived at present—the ‘no’ people. In London, the fabric around theTower of London is constantly changing and hasbeen for centuries so to fight high-rise there ischurlish, but we should protect Westminsterfrom intrusions of high-rise. Heritage is badlyserved by some of its protagonists who fre-quently take entrenched, unrealistic positions.”

Some of the problems with heritage sites arethe problem of success. Rapid urbanisation andmore frequent natural disasters and conflictsare taking a toll on sites as the land area encom-passed by the designation grows. Designation, itis argued, also brings with it damaging footfalland excessive water use from tourism. AngkorWat and sites in Laos are often cited, but it ishard to separate the consequences of designa-tion from a general rise in tourism.

“Many planning efforts to address the issue,such as the plan developed for Angkor, havefailed owing to weak local enforcement,” saysVince Michael, the chief conservation officer atthe Global Heritage Fund. “Arguably more siteson the list would spread the tourism out ratherthan focusing it on a few must-see sites. Thefund works on sites in Cambodia and Peru thatare as rich and interesting as Angkor and MachuPicchu, but are overlooked because they lackWorld Heritage inscription.”

Survival of sitesSue Miller puts well managed tourism at the cen-tre of any strategy to ensure the survival of sites.“The engagement of visitors in understandingwhy these places are so special is central to theconservation of the world’s greatest places,” shesays, adding: “World Heritage destinations are aglobal success story, with tourism receipts fund-

“Corruption also undoubtedly occurs, but Unescodoesn’t have many sanctions to impose”

THE ART NEWSPAPER Number 240, November 2012 61

MOS

TAR:

PET

E AN

D KI

MM

Y BI

RD

1945•Unesco is created at the end of the SecondWorld War

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

1959•Unesco leads the successful multi-national cam-paign to save the Nubian temple Abu Simbel fromdrowning in Lake Nasser following the building ofthe Aswan High Damn. Relocation begins in 1964

1970• Convention on the Means of Prohibiting andPreventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transferof Ownership of Cultural Property

1972•Adoption of the Convention Concerning theProtection of the World Cultural and NaturalHeritage, linking for the first time the concepts ofboth nature conservation and cultural propertiesas World Heritage sites. The convention is gov-erned by the World Heritage Committee

1975• Ratification of the convention. The List of WorldHeritage in Danger and World Heritage Fund arecreated

1978• The World Heritage Committee develops selec-tion criteria and operational guidelines. Ecuador’sGalápagos Islands is the first of 12 sites to beinscribed on the World Heritage List

1992• Sites inscribed: 377. The World Heritage Centre isestablished in Paris to oversee the management ofthe convention. Cultural landscapes are protected

1994•Global strategy adopted to address imbalanceson the list. The Nara Document on Authenticity isadopted

1996•After the Bosnian War, the Blue Shield, the cul-tural equivalent of the Red Cross, is established,working alongside Unesco and Icorp, the Icomosbody dealing with heritage at risk

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

2003• Convention for the Safeguarding of IntangibleCultural Heritage identifies living heritage—song,drama, skills—”human treasure” for preservation(effective 2006)

2007•A fifth objective, community, is added to thestrategic objectives

2012• The 40th anniversary of the convention. A yearof events with a focus on sustainable develop-ment. A wide-ranging review of the convention isbegun. Sites inscribed on the list: 962

TIMELINE

WORLD HERITAGECONVENTION

But Unesco couldn’t stop the destruction of the Mostar Bridge, which was blown up in 1993 (although it did help rebuild it)

CONTINUED ON PAGE 62

ing support for conservation activities. The denialof this nexus between conservation and tourismcould have dire consequences.” Bandarin callstourism “the main challenge for heritage conser-vation in the 21st century”. According to him,tourism has grown exponentially, and while ithas great economic development potential, itcould also be very destructive. He has proposedto the Unesco board that it study a recommenda-tion on the relationship between heritage andtourism that will in turn inform national policies.

Budget cutsA major hindrance to the future success of theconvention is cash. Last year, after Unesco admit-ted Palestine as a member, the US promptly cutoff its $80m annual contribution— almost aquarter of the organisation’s budget. There wasnever that much money in the first place withthe convention’s World Heritage Fund having ameagre $14m. Much of the heritage work on theground is carried out by volunteers.

Something has to give. Unesco is determinedto shift the emphasis to state parties to lookafter their own sites. “There has been compla-cency in that once on the list that Unesco willlook after everything. All they have to do is milkthe cash cow,” John Hurd says.

There is now an increasing reliance on bod-ies such as the Global Heritage Fund and theWorld Monuments Fund. The latter has its ownhigh-profile watchlist of heritage in danger.“Unesco is so impoverished it is almost unableto meet its basic commitments,” says the Getty’sSusan MacDonald. “Partnerships with non-prof-its and other third sector organisations aretherefore vital. Organisations like my own arehaving to do more policy and strategic work asgovernment reduces this. But strong nationallegislation is needed for good outcomes.”

Unesco is using its 40th anniversary as anopportunity to undertake some heavy-duty soulsearching. Are the objectives of the convention as

relevant today as they were 40 years ago? “Yes” isthe resounding answer, but a review of how itsaims are achieved is underway with a conferenceplanned to discuss outcomes in early 2013.

Hurd wants state parties to take more respon-sibility, and for the way that the national advi-sory bodies operate to converge; Miller alsowants the convention’s operational guidelines toaddress tourism (it is not mentioned at present).All agree that the way the World HeritageCommittee does business needs addressing.

Vetting process“In terms of unsuitable sites and lobbying, it isquite straightforward,” says Andrew Croft.“Establish an independent body of experts to vetnominations to weed out unsuitable sites and toadvise state parties and local bodies promotingsites as to the ‘worthwhileness’ of the proposal.”He feels that Icomos and Icun are not perform-ing that role adequately and that their pro-grammes should more directly address interre-

lated issues, such as climate change, poverty,water shortages and rapid urbanisation.

“It is not easy,” says Jukka Jokilehto,“because the people who decide the rules alsodecide how to bend them. It would be necessaryto establish a step-by-step process for the nomi-nation, which could start with the professionalrecognition of the “outstanding universal value”,then go further and verify the boundaries, andfinally—after a probation period—verify the con-servation and management regime.”

Croft is more radical: “One major issue withthe World Heritage Site system is that it makesstatic the meaning and value of a place—changetherefore becomes a threat. We need to explorehow we can build change into the conceptuali-sation and nomination of a World Heritage Site.

Perhaps the importance of the WorldHeritage Convention is only truly recognisedwhen it fails in its mission. What to do whenBamiyan’s buddhas are blown up, for example?Unesco’s roar can be that of a paper tiger as far

as iconoclasts or dictators are concerned. “Thatis the question on everyone’s lips,” Hurd says.“We can’t do anything about armed groupswalking around destroying things, there is noheritage army.” He instead points to quiet suc-cess in places such as Libya where the heritagesector supplied inventories of sites to be avoidedto combatants. “Very few heritage sites sufferedfrom bombardment and because of the processof listing the sites, locals began to defend theirheritage on the ground. We are doing the samething in Syria and Mali—registering every sig-nificant and not so significant heritage prop-erty. That’s all we can do,” Hurd says.

The fact that we care at all is a conventionsuccess story, says Vincent Michael. “The reactionthe world had to Mostar, to Bamiyan, to Mali andAleppo, is not conceivable without it. Yes, we areasking too much of the convention. We alwayshave. That is what humans do. We strive for ahigher goal than we can achieve,” he says.• The writer is a member of Icomos

THE ART NEWSPAPER Number 240, November 201262

FEATUREWorld Heritage at 40

DRESDEN

In 2009, the Dresden Elbe Valley, inscribed for its historicmonuments and parks set in meadows, was the first cul-tural site to be deleted from the list after a four-lanebridge was built through its heart. St Petersburg, London,Liverpool and Edinburgh are other Western cities withsites that Unesco says are under threat.

FLASHPOINTS in the World Heritage Convention’s history

BOSNIA & CROATIA

The targeting of heritage sites in the war in theformer Yugoslavia brought the fate of heritage intimes of conflict into sharp focus. Arguably, theshelling of Dubrovnik and the razing of Mostar’sbridge helped alter perceptions of the conflict,leading to outside intervention.

BAMIYAN BUDDHAS

Despite appeals from Unesco and from Pakistan, SaudiArabia and the UAE, which recognised the Afghan regime,the Taliban decided that the two buddhas were idolatrousand destroyed them in 2001. Although what to do with theremains is still being debated, one suggestion is to leave theempty niches as they are as a reminder of what used to be .

PREAH VIHEAR

A dispute over the ownership of the 11th-centurytemple at Preah Vihear on the Thai-Cambodianborder intensified after Unesco declared it aWorld Heritage Site. Sporadic fighting saw thetemple slightly damaged by Thai shelling in 2011.Troops on both sides pulled back in July this year.

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 57

DRES

DEN:

DE.

ACAD

EMIC

.RU,

BAM

IYAN

: CNN

200

1