skopelosculture.com

Could Skopelos join the World Heritage Convention? Read the selection criteria.

WHC. 08/01
January 2008

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the

World Heritage Convention

I. INTRODUCTION

I.A The Operational Guidelines

1. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (hereinafter referred to as the Operational Guidelines) aim to facilitate the implementation of the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (hereinafter referred to as “the World Heritage Convention” or “the Convention”), by setting forth the procedure for:
a) the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger;
b) the protection and conservation of World Heritage properties;
c) the granting of International Assistance under the World Heritage Fund; and
d) the mobilization of national and international support in favor of the Convention.
2. The Operational Guidelines are periodically revised to reflect the decisions of the World Heritage Committee.
Th
e historical development of the Operational Guidelines is available at the following Web address: http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelineshistorical
3. The key users of the Operational Guidelines are:
a) the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention;
b) the Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of Outstanding Universal Value, hereinafter referred to as “the World Heritage Committee” or “the Committee”;
c) the UNESCO World Heritage Centre as Secretariat to the World Heritage Committee, hereinafter referred to as “the Secretariat”;
d) the Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee ;
e) site managers, stakeholders and partners in the protection of World Heritage properties.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 1
I.B The World Heritage Convention
4. The cultural and natural heritage is among the priceless and irreplaceable assets, not only of each nation, but of humanity as a whole. The loss, through deterioration or disappearance, of any of these most prized assets constitutes an impoverishment of the heritage of all the peoples of the world. Parts of that heritage, because of their exceptional qualities, can be considered to be of “outstanding universal value” and as such worthy of special protection against the dangers which increasingly threaten them.
5. To ensure, as far as possible, the proper identification, protection, conservation and presentation of the world’s heritage, the Member States of UNESCO adopted the World Heritage Convention in 1972. The Convention foresees the establishment of a “World Heritage Committee” and a “World Heritage Fund”. Both the Committee and the Fund have been in operation since 1976.
6. Since the adoption of the Convention in 1972, the international community has embraced the concept of “sustainable development”. The protection and conservation of the natural and cultural heritage are a significant contribution to sustainable development.
7. The Convention aims at the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value.
8. The criteria and conditions for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List have been developed to evaluate the outstanding universal value of properties and to guide States Parties in the protection and management of World Heritage properties.
9. When a property inscribed on the World Heritage List is threatened by serious and specific dangers, the Committee considers placing it on the List of World Heritage in Danger. When the outstanding universal value of the property which justified its inscription on the World Heritage List is destroyed, the Committee considers deleting the property from the World Heritage List.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 2 f the World Heritage Convention
I.C The States Parties to the World Heritage Convention
10. States are encouraged to become party to the Convention. Model instruments for ratification/acceptance and accession are included as Annex 1. The original signed version should be sent to the Director-General of UNESCO.
11. The list of States Parties to the Convention is available at the following Web address:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties

12. States Parties to the Convention are encouraged to ensure the participation of a wide variety of stakeholders, including site managers, local and regional governments, local communities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other interested parties and partners in the identification, nomination and protection of World Heritage properties.
13. States Parties to the Convention should provide the Secretariat with the names and addresses of the governmental organization(s) primarily responsible as national focal point(s) for the implementation of the Convention, so that copies of all official correspondence and documents can be sent by the Secretariat to these national focal points as appropriate. A list of these addresses is available at the following Web address:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/statespartiesfocalpoints

States Parties are encouraged to publicize this information nationally and ensure that it is up to date.
14. States Parties are encouraged to bring together their cultural and natural heritage experts at regular intervals to discuss the implementation of the Convention. States Parties may wish to involve representatives of the Advisory Bodies and other experts as appropriate.
15. While fully respecting the sovereignty of the States on whose territory the cultural and natural heritage is situated, States Parties to the Convention recognize the collective interest of the international community to cooperate in the protection of this heritage. States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, have the responsibility to:
Article 6(1) of the World Heritage Convention.
a) ensure the identification, nomination, protection, conservation, presentation, and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage found within their territory, and give help in these tasks to other States Parties that request it;
Article 4 and 6(2) of the World Heritage Convention.
b) adopt general policies to give the heritage a function in the life of the community;
Article 5 of the World Heritage Convention.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 3
c) integrate heritage protection into comprehensive planning programmes;
d) establish services for the protection, conservation and presentation of the heritage;
e) develop scientific and technical studies to identify actions that would counteract the dangers that threaten the heritage;
f) take appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures to protect the heritage;
g) foster the establishment or development of national or regional centres for training in the protection, conservation and presentation of the heritage and encourage scientific research in these fields;
h) not take any deliberate measures that directly or indirectly damage their heritage or that of another State Party to the Convention;
Article 6(3) of the World Heritage Convention.
i) submit to the World Heritage Committee an inventory of properties suitable for inscription on the World Heritage List (referred to as a Tentative List);
Article 11(1) of the World Heritage Convention.
j) make regular contributions to the World Heritage Fund, the amount of which is determined by the General Assembly of States Parties to the Convention;
Article 16(1) of the World Heritage Convention.
k) consider and encourage the establishment of national, public and private foundations or associations to facilitate donations for the protection of World Heritage;
Article 17 of the World Heritage Convention.
l) give assistance to international fund-raising campaigns organized for the World Heritage Fund;
Article 18 of the World Heritage Convention.
m) use educational and information programmes to strengthen appreciation and respect by their peoples of the cultural and natural heritage defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention, and to keep the public informed of the dangers threatening this heritage;
Article 27 of the World Heritage Convention.
(n) provide information to the World Heritage Committee on the implementation of the World Heritage Convention and state of conservation of properties; and
Article 29 of the World Heritage Convention. Resolution adopted by the 11th General Assembly of States Parties (1997)
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 4 f the World Heritage Convention
16. States Parties are encouraged to attend sessions of the World Heritage Committee and its subsidiary bodies.
Rule 8.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Heritage Committee.
I.D The General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention
17.
The General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention meets during the sessions of the General Conference of UNESCO. The General Assembly manages its meetings according to its Rules of Procedure, available at the following Web address: http://whc.unesco.org/en/garules
18. The General Assembly determines the uniform percentage of contributions to the World Heritage Fund applicable to all States Parties and elects members to the World Heritage Committee. Both the General Assembly and General Conference of UNESCO receive a report from the World Heritage Committee on its activities.
Article 8(1), of the World Heritage Convention, Rule 49 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Heritage Committee.
Articles 8(1), 16(1) and 29 of the World Heritage Convention and Rule 49 of the Rules of Procedure of the World Heritage Committee.
I.E The World Heritage Committee
19. The World Heritage Committee is composed of 21 members and meets at least once a year (June/July). It establishes its Bureau, which meets during the sessions of the Committee as frequently as deemed necessary. The composition of the Committee and its Bureau is available at the following Web address: http://whc.unesco.org/en/committeemembers
The
World Heritage Committee can be contacted through its Secretariat, the World Heritage Centre.
20. The Committee manages its meetings according to its Rules of Procedure, available at the following Web address:

http://whc.unesco.org/committeerules

21. The term of office of Committee members is six years but, in order to ensure equitable representation and rotation, States Parties are invited by the General Assembly to consider voluntarily reducing their term of office from six to four years and are discouraged from seeking consecutive terms of office.
Article 9(1) of the World Heritage Convention.
Art
icle 8(2) of the World Heritage Convention and the Resolutions of the 7th (1989), 12th (1999) and 13th (2001) General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention.
22. A certain number of seats may be reserved for States Parties who do not have a property on the World Heritage List, upon decision of the Committee at the session that precedes the General Assembly.
Rule 14.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly of States Parties.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 5
23. Committee decisions are based on objective and scientific considerations, and any appraisal made on its behalf must be thoroughly and responsibly carried out. The Committee recognizes that such decisions depend upon:
a) carefully prepared documentation;
b)
thorough and consistent procedures;
c)
evaluation by qualified experts; and
d) if necessary, the use of expert referees.
24. The main functions of the Committee are, in co-operation with States Parties, to:
a) identify, on the basis of Tentative Lists and nominations submitted by States Parties, cultural and natural properties of outstanding universal value which are to be protected under the Convention and to inscribe those properties on the World Heritage List;
Article 11(2) of the World Heritage Convention.
b) examine the state of conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List through processes of Reactive Monitoring (see Chapter IV) and Periodic Reporting (see Chapter V);
Articles 11(7) and 29 of the World Heritage Convention.
c) decide which properties inscribed on the World Heritage List are to be inscribed on, or removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger;
Article 11(4) and 11(5) of the World Heritage Convention.
d) decide whether a property should be deleted from the World Heritage List (see Chapter IV);
e) define the procedure by which requests for International Assistance are to be considered and carry out studies and consultations as necessary before coming to a decision (see Chapter VII);
Article 21(1) and 21(3) of the World Heritage Convention.
f) determine how the resources of the World Heritage Fund can be used most advantageously to assist States Parties in the protection of their properties of outstanding universal value;
Article 13(6) of the World Heritage Convention.
g) seek ways to increase the World Heritage Fund;
h) submit a report on its activities every two years to the General Assembly of States Parties and to the UNESCO General Conference;
Ar
ticle 29(3) of the World Heritage Convention and Rule 49 of the Rules of procedure of the World Heritage Committee.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 6 f the World Heritage Convention
i) review and evaluate periodically the implementation of the Convention;
j) revise and adopt the Operational Guidelines.
25. In order to facilitate the implementation of the Convention, the Committee develops Strategic Objectives; they are periodically reviewed and revised to define the goals and objectives of the Committee to ensure that new threats placed on World Heritage are addressed effectively.
The first ‘Strategic Orientations’ adopted by the Committee in 1992 are contained in Annex II of document WHC-92/CONF.002/12
26. The current Strategic Objectives (also referred to as “the 5 Cs”) are the following:
1. Strengthen the Credibility of the World Heritage List;
2. Ensure the effective Conservation of World Heritage Properties;
3. Promote the development of effective Capacity-building in States Parties;
4. Increase public awareness, involvement and support for World Heritage through Communication.
5. Enhance the role of Communities in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.
In 2002 the World Heritage Committee revised its Strategic Objectives. The Budapest Declaration on World Heritage (2002) is available at the following Web address: http://whc.unesco.org/en/budapestdeclaration
Decision 31 COM 13B
I.F The Secretariat to the World Heritage Committee (World Heritage Centre)
UNESCO World Heritage Centre
7, place de Fontenoy
75352 Paris 07 SP
France
Tel: +33 (0) 1 4568 1571
Fax: +33 (0) 1 4568 5570
E-mail: wh-info@unesco.org
www: http://whc.unesco.org/
27. The World Heritage Committee is assisted by a Secretariat appointed by the Director-General of UNESCO. The function of the Secretariat is currently assumed by the World Heritage Centre, established in 1992 specifically for this purpose. The Director-General designated the Director of the World Heritage Centre as Secretary to the Committee. The Secretariat assists and collaborates with the States Parties and the Advisory Bodies. The Secretariat works in close co-operation with other sectors and field offices of UNESCO.
Article 14 of the World Heritage Convention.
Rule 43 of Rules of Procedure of the World Heritage Committee.
Circular Letter 16 of 21 October 2003 http://whc.unesco.org/circs/circ03-16e.pdf
28. The Secretariat’s main tasks are:
a) the organization of the meetings of the General Assembly and the Committee;
Article 14.2 of the World Heritage Convention.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 7
b) the implementation of decisions of the World Heritage Committee and resolutions of the General Assembly and reporting to them on their execution;
Article 14.2 of the World Heritage Convention and the Budapest Declaration on World Heritage (2002)
c) the receipt, registration, checking the completeness, archiving and transmission to the relevant Advisory Bodies of nominations to the World Heritage List;
d) the co-ordination of studies and activities as part of the Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List;
e) the organization of Periodic Reporting and co-ordination of Reactive Monitoring;
f) the co-ordination of International Assistance;
g) the mobilisation of extra-budgetary resources for the conservation and management of World Heritage properties;
h) the assistance to States Parties in the implementation of the Committee’s programmes and projects; and
i) the promotion of World Heritage and the Convention through the dissemination of information to States Parties, the Advisory Bodies and the general public.
29. These activities follow the decisions and Strategic Objectives of the Committee and the resolutions of the General Assembly of the States Parties and are conducted in close co-operation with the Advisory Bodies.
I.G Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee
30. The Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee are ICCROM (the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property), ICOMOS (the International Council on Monuments and Sites), and IUCN – the World Conservation Union.
Article 8.3 of the World Heritage Convention
31. The roles of the Advisory Bodies are to:
a) advise on the implementation of the World Heritage Convention in the field of their expertise;
Article 13.7 of the World Heritage Convention.
b) assist the Secretariat, in the preparation of the Committee’s documentation, the agenda of its meetings and the implementation of the Committee’s decisions;
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 8 f the World Heritage Convention
c) assist with the development and implementation of the Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List, the Global Training Strategy, Periodic Reporting, and the strengthening of the effective use of the World Heritage Fund;
d) monitor the state of conservation of World Heritage properties and review requests for International Assistance;
Article 14.2 of the World Heritage Convention.
e) in the case of ICOMOS and IUCN evaluate properties nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List and present evaluation reports to the Committee; and
f) attend meetings of the World Heritage Committee and the Bureau in an advisory capacity.
Article 8.3 of the World Heritage Convention.
IC
CROM
32.
ICCROM (the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property) is an international intergovernmental organization with headquarters in Rome, Italy. Established by UNESCO in 1956, ICCROM’s statutory functions are to carry out research, documentation, technical assistance, training and public awareness programmes to strengthen conservation of immovable and moveable cultural heritage.
33. The specific role of ICCROM in relation to the Convention includes: being the priority partner in training for cultural heritage, monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage cultural properties, reviewing requests for International Assistance submitted by States Parties, and providing input and support for capacity-building activities.
ICCROM
Via di S. Michele, 13
I-00153 Rome, Italy
Tel : +39 06 585531
Fax: +39 06 5855 3349
Email: iccrom@iccrom.org

http://www.iccrom.org/

IC
OMOS
34.
ICOMOS (the International Council on Monuments and Sites) is a non-governmental organization with headquarters in Paris, France. Founded in 1965, its role is to promote the application of theory, methodology and scientific techniques to the conservation of the architectural and archaeological heritage. Its work is based on the principles of the 1964 International Charter on the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (the Venice Charter).
35. The specific role of ICOMOS in relation to the Convention
ICOMOS
49-51, rue de la Fédération 75015 Paris, France Tel : +33 (0)1 45 67 67 70 Fax : +33 (0)1 45 66 06 22 E-mail: secretariat@icomos.org

http://www.icomos.org/

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 9
includes: evaluation of properties nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List, monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage cultural properties, reviewing requests for International Assistance submitted by States Parties, and providing input and support for capacity-building activities.
IU
CN
36.
IUCN – The World Conservation Union (formely the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) was founded in 1948 and brings together national governments, NGOs, and scientists in a worldwide partnership. Its mission is to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable. IUCN has its headquarters in Gland, Switzerland.
37. The specific role of IUCN in relation to the Convention includes: evaluation of properties nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List, monitoring the state of conservation of World Heritage natural properties, reviewing requests for International Assistance submitted by States Parties, and providing input and support for capacity-building activities.
IUCN – The World Conservation Union
rue Mauverney 28
CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland
Tel: + 41 22 999 0001
Fax: +41 22 999 0010
E-Mail: mail@hq.iucn.org

http://www.iucn.org

I.H Other organizations
38. The Committee may call on other international and non-governmental organizations with appropriate competence and expertise to assist in the implementation of the programmes and projects.
I.I Partners in the protection of World Heritage
39. A partnership approach to nomination, management and monitoring provides a significant contribution to the protection of World Heritage properties and the implementation of the Convention.
40. Partners in the protection and conservation of World Heritage can be those individuals and other stakeholders, especially local communities, governmental, non-governmental and private organizations and owners who have an interest and involvement in the conservation and management of a World Heritage property.
I.J Other Conventions, Recommendations and Programmes
41. The World Heritage Committee recognizes the benefits of
closer co-ordination of its work with other UNESCO
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 10 f the World Heritage Convention
42. The World Heritage Committee with the support of the Secretariat will ensure appropriate co-ordination and information-sharing between the World Heritage Convention and other Conventions, programmes and international organizations related to the conservation of cultural and natural heritage.
43. The Committee may invite representatives of the intergovernmental bodies under related Conventions to attend its meetings as observers. It may appoint a representative to observe meetings of the other intergovernmental bodies upon receipt of an invitation.
44. Selected global Conventions and programmes relating to the protection of cultural and natural heritage
UNESCO Conventions and Programmes
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954)
Protocol I (1954)
Protocol II (1999)

http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/hague/html_eng/page1.shtml

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

http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/1970/html_eng/page1.shtml

Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972)

http://www.unesco.org/whc/world_he.htm

Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001)

http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/underwater/html_eng/convention.shtml

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003)

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132540e.pdf

Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Programme

http://www.unesco.org/mab/

Other Conventions
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar) (1971)

http://www.ramsar.org/key_conv_e.htm

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 11
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (1973)

http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) (1979)

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/cms/cms_conv.htm

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982)

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm

Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)

http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp

UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (Rome, 1995)

http://www.unidroit.org/english/conventions/culturalproperty/c-cult.htm

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (New York, 1992)

http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1350.php

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 12 f the World Heritage Convention
II. THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
II.A Definition of World Heritage
Cultural and Natural Heritage
45. Cultural and natural heritage are defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the World Heritage Convention.
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as “cultural heritage”;
- monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;
- groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;
- sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and of man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological points of view.
Article 2
For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as “natural heritage”:
- natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view;
geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation;
- natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty.
Mixed Cultural and Natural Heritage
46. Properties shall be considered as “mixed cultural and natural heritage” if they satisfy a part or the whole of the definitions
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 13
of both cultural and natural heritage laid out in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention.
Cultural landscapes
47. Cultural landscapes are cultural properties and represent the “combined works of nature and of man” designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal.
Annex 3
Movable Heritage
48. Nominations of immovable heritage which are likely to become movable will not be considered.
Outstanding universal value
49. Outstanding universal value means cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole. The Committee defines the criteria for the inscription of properties on the World Heritage List.
50. States Parties are invited to submit nominations of properties of cultural and/or natural value considered to be of “outstanding universal value” for inscription on the World Heritage List.
51. At the time of inscription of a property on the World Heritage
List, the Committee adopts a Statement of Outstanding
Universal Value (see paragraph 154) which will be the key
reference for the future effective protection and management of
the property.
52. The Convention is not intended to ensure the protection of all properties of great interest, importance or value, but only for a select list of the most outstanding of these from an international viewpoint. It is not to be assumed that a property of national and/or regional importance will automatically be inscribed on the World Heritage List.
53. Nominations presented to the Committee shall demonstrate the full commitment of the State Party to preserve the heritage concerned, within its means. Such commitment shall take the
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 14 f the World Heritage Convention
form of appropriate policy, legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures adopted and proposed to protect the property and its outstanding universal value.
II.B A Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List
54. The Committee seeks to establish a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List in conformity with the four Strategic Objectives adopted by the Committee at its 26th session (Budapest, 2002).
Budapest Declaration on World Heritage (2002) at http://whc.unesco.org/en/budapestdeclaration
The Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List
55. The Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and
Credible World Heritage List is designed to identify and fill the
major gaps in the World Heritage List. It does this by
encouraging more countries to become States Parties to the
Convention and to develop Tentative Lists as defined in
paragraph 62 and nominations of properties for inscription on
the World Heritage List (see

http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy)

The report of the Expert Meeting on the “Global Strategy” and thematic studies for a representative World Heritage List (20-22 June 1994) was adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 18th session (Phuket, 1994).
The Global Strategy was initially developed with reference to cultural heritage. At the request of the World Heritage Committee, the Global Strategy was subsequently expanded to also include reference to natural heritage and combined cultural and natural heritage.
56. States Parties and the Advisory Bodies are encouraged to participate in the implementation of the Global Strategy in co-operation with the Secretariat and other partners. Regional and thematic Global Strategy meetings and comparative and thematic studies are organized for this purpose. The results of these meetings and studies are available to assist States Parties in preparing Tentative Lists and nominations. The reports of the expert meetings and studies presented to the World Heritage Committee are available at the following Web address: http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy
57. All efforts should be made to maintain a reasonable balance between cultural and natural heritage on the World Heritage List.
58. No formal limit is imposed on the total number of properties to be inscribed on the World Heritage List.
Other measures
59. To promote the establishment of a representative, balanced
Resolution adopted by the 12th Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 15
and credible World Heritage List, States Parties are requested to consider whether their heritage is already well represented on the List and if so to slow down their rate of submission of further nominations by:
General Assembly of States Parties (1999).
a) spacing voluntarily their nominations according to conditions that they will define, and/or;
b) proposing only properties falling into categories still under-represented, and/or;
c) linking each of their nominations with a nomination presented by a State Party whose heritage is under-represented; or
d) deciding, on a voluntary basis, to suspend the presentation of new nominations.
60. States Parties whose heritage of outstanding universal value is under-represented on the World Heritage List are requested to:
a) give priority to the preparation of their Tentative Lists and nominations;
b) initiate and consolidate partnerships at the regional level based on the exchange of technical expertise;
c) encourage bilateral and multilateral co-operation so as to increase their expertise and the technical capacities of institutions in charge of the protection, safeguarding and management of their heritage; and,
d) participate, as much as possible, in the sessions of the World Heritage Committee.
Resolution adopted by the 12th General Assembly of States Parties (1999).
61. The Committee has decided to apply the following mechanism:
a) examine up to two complete nominations per State Party, provided that at least one of such nominations concerns a natural property, nevertheless, on an experimental basis of 4 years, leaving to the State Party the decision on the nature of the nomination, whether natural or cultural, as per its national priorities, its history and geography and,
b) set at 45 the annual limit on the number of nominations it will review, inclusive of nominations deferred and referred by previous sessions of the Committee, extensions (except minor modifications of limits of the property), transboundary and serial
Decisions 24 COM VI.2.3.3,
28 COM 13.1 and
7 EXT.COM 4B.1
29 COM 18A
31 COM 10
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 16 f the World Heritage Convention
nominations,
c)
the following order of priorities will be applied in case the overall annual limit of 45 nominations is exceeded:
i) n
ominations of properties submitted by States Parties with no properties inscribed on the List;
ii) n
ominations of properties submitted by States Parties having up to 3 properties inscribed on the List,
iii
) nominations of properties that have been previously excluded due to the annual limit of 45 nominations and the application of these priorities,
iv
) nominations of properties for natural heritage,
v) n
ominations of properties for mixed heritage,
vi) n
ominations of transboundary/transnational properties,
vii) n
ominations from States Parties in Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean,
vii
i) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties having ratified the World Heritage Convention during the last ten years,
ix
) nominations of properties submitted by States Parties that have not submitted nominations for ten years or more,
x) when applying this priority system, date of receipt of full and complete nominations by the World Heritage Centre shall be used as a secondary factor to determine the priority between those nominations that would not be designated by the previous points.
d) the States Parties co-authors of a transboundary or transnational serial nomination can choose, amongst themselves and with a common understanding, the State Party which will be bearing this nomination; and this nomination can be registered exclusively within the ceiling of the bearing State Party.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 17
The impact of this decision will be evaluated at the Committee’s 35th session (2011).
II.C Tentative Lists
Procedure and Format
62. A Tentative List is an inventory of those properties situated on its territory which each State Party considers suitable for inscription on the World Heritage List. States Parties should therefore include, in their Tentative Lists, the names of those properties which they consider to be cultural and/or natural heritage of outstanding universal value and which they intend to nominate during the following years.
Articles 1, 2 and 11(1) of the World Heritage Convention.
63. Nominations to the World Heritage List are not considered unless the nominated property has already been included on the State Party’s Tentative List.
Decision 24COM para.VI.2.3.2
64. States Parties are encouraged to prepare their Tentative Lists with the participation of a wide variety of stakeholders, including site managers, local and regional governments, local communities, NGOs and other interested parties and partners.
65. States Parties shall submit Tentative Lists to the Secretariat, preferably at least one year prior to the submission of any nomination. States Parties are encouraged to re-examine and re-submit their Tentative List at least every ten years.
66. States Parties are requested to submit their Tentative Lists in English or French using the standard format in Annex 2, containing the name of the properties, their geographical location, a brief description of the properties, and justification of their outstanding universal value.
67. The original duly signed version of the completed Tentative List shall be submitted by the State Party, to:
UNESCO World Heritage Centre
7, place de Fontenoy
75352 Paris 07 SP
France
Tel: +33 (0) 1 4568 1136
E-mail: wh-tentativelists@unesco.org
68. If all information has been provided, the Tentative List will be registered by the Secretariat and transmitted to the relevant Advisory Bodies for information. A summary of all Tentative Lists is presented annually to the Committee. The Secretariat, in consultation with the States Parties concerned, updates its
Decision 7 EXT.COM 4A
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 18 f the World Heritage Convention
records, in particular by removing from the Tentative Lists the inscribed properties and nominated properties which were not inscribed.
69. The Tentative Lists of States Parties are available at the following Web address: http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists
Decision 27 COM 8A
Tentative Lists as a planning and evaluation tool
70. Tentative Lists are a useful and important planning tool for States Parties, the World Heritage Committee, the Secretariat, and the Advisory Bodies, as they provide an indication of future nominations.
71. States Parties are encouraged to consult the analyses of both the World Heritage List and Tentative Lists prepared at the request of the Committee by ICOMOS and IUCN to identify the gaps in the World Heritage List. These analyses could enable States Parties to compare themes, regions, geo-cultural groupings and bio-geographic provinces for prospective World Heritage properties.
Decision 24 COM para. VI.2.3.2(ii)
Documents WHC-04/28.COM/13.B I and II
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2004/whc04-28com-13b1e.pdf and http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2004/whc04-28com-13b2e.pdf
72. In addition, States Parties are encouraged to consult the
specific thematic studies carried out by the Advisory Bodies
(see paragraph 147). These studies are informed by a review of
the Tentative Lists submitted by States Parties and by reports
of meetings on the harmonization of Tentative Lists, as well as
by other technical studies performed by the Advisory Bodies
and qualified organizations and individuals. A list of those
studies already completed is available at the following Web
address: http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy
Thematic studies are different
than the comparative analysis to
be prepared by States Parties
when nominating properties for
inscription in the World Heritage
List (see paragraph 132).
73. States Parties are encouraged to harmonize their Tentative Lists at regional and thematic levels. Harmonization of Tentative Lists is the process whereby States Parties, with the assistance of the Advisory Bodies, collectively assess their respective Tentative List to review gaps and identify common themes. The outcome of harmonization can result in improved Tentative Lists, new nominations from States Parties and co-operation amongst groups of States Parties in the preparation of nominations.
Assistance and Capacity-Building for States Parties in the preparation of Tentative Lists
74. To implement the Global Strategy, cooperative efforts in capacity-building and training may be necessary to assist States Parties to acquire and/or consolidate their expertise in the preparation, updating and harmonisation of their Tentative List and the preparation of nominations.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 19
75. International Assistance may be requested by States Parties for the purpose of preparing, updating and harmonizing Tentative Lists (see Chapter VII).
76. The Advisory Bodies and the Secretariat will use the opportunity of evaluation missions to hold regional training workshops to assist under-represented States in the methods of preparation of their Tentative List and nominations.
Decision 24COM VI.2.3.5(ii)
II.D Criteria for the assessment of outstanding universal value
These criteria were formerly presented as two separate sets of criteria – criteria (i) – (vi) for cultural heritage and (i) – (iv) for natural heritage.
The
6th extraordinary session of the World Heritage Committee decided to merge the ten criteria (Decision 6 EXT.COM 5.1)
77. The Committee considers a property as having outstanding
universal value (see paragraphs 49- 53) if the property meets
one or more of the following criteria. Nominated properties
shall therefore :
(i) represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;
(ii) 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;
(iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;
(iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;
(v) 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;
(vi) 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) ;
(vii) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 20 f the World Heritage Convention
(viii) 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) 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) contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.
78. To be deemed of outstanding universal value, a property must also meet the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity and must have an adequate protection and management system to ensure its safeguarding.
II.E Integrity and/or authenticity
Authenticity
79. Properties nominated under criteria (i) to (vi) must meet the conditions of authenticity. Annex 4 which includes the Nara Document on Authenticity, provides a practical basis for examining the authenticity of such properties and is summarized below.
80. The ability to understand the value attributed to the heritage depends on the degree to which information sources about this value may be understood as credible or truthful. Knowledge and understanding of these sources of information, in relation to original and subsequent characteristics of the cultural heritage, and their meaning, are the requisite bases for assessing all aspects of authenticity.
81. Judgments about value attributed to cultural heritage, as well as the credibility of related information sources, may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture. The respect due to all cultures requires that cultural heritage must be considered and judged primarily within the cultural contexts to which it belongs.
8
2. Depending on the type of cultural heritage, and its cultural context, properties may be understood to meet the conditions of authenticity if their cultural values (as recognized in the
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 21
nomination criteria proposed) are truthfully and credibly expressed through a variety of attributes including:
•
form and design;
•
materials and substance;
•
use and function;
•
traditions, techniques and management systems;
•
location and setting;
•
language, and other forms of intangible heritage;
• spirit and feeling; and
• ot
her internal and external factors.
83. Attributes such as spirit and feeling do not lend themselves easily to practical applications of the conditions of authenticity, but nevertheless are important indicators of character and sense of place, for example, in communities maintaining tradition and cultural continuity.
84. The use of all these sources permits elaboration of the specific artistic, historic, social, and scientific dimensions of the cultural heritage being examined. “Information sources” are defined as all physical, written, oral, and figurative sources, which make it possible to know the nature, specificities, meaning, and history of the cultural heritage.
85. When the conditions of authenticity are considered in preparing a nomination for a property, the State Party should first identify all of the applicable significant attributes of authenticity. The statement of authenticity should assess the degree to which authenticity is present in, or expressed by, each of these significant attributes.
86. In relation to authenticity, the reconstruction of archaeological remains or historic buildings or districts is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances. Reconstruction is acceptable only on the basis of complete and detailed documentation and to no extent on conjecture.
Integrity
87. All properties nominated for inscription on the World Heritage List shall satisfy the conditions of integrity.
Decision 20 COM IX.13
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 22 f the World Heritage Convention
88. Integrity is a measure of the wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or cultural heritage and its attributes. Examining the conditions of integrity, therefore requires assessing the extent to which the property:
a) includes all elements necessary to express its outstanding universal value;
b) is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance;
c) suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect.
This should be presented in a statement of integrity.
89. For properties nominated under criteria (i) to (vi), the physical fabric of the property and/or its significant features should be in good condition, and the impact of deterioration processes controlled. A significant proportion of the elements necessary to convey the totality of the value conveyed by the property should be included. Relationships and dynamic functions present in cultural landscapes, historic towns or other living properties essential to their distinctive character should also be maintained.
Examples of the application of the conditions of integrity to properties nominated under criteria (i) – (vi) are under development.
90. For all properties nominated under criteria (vii) – (x), bio-physical processes and landform features should be relatively intact. However, it is recognized that no area is totally pristine and that all natural areas are in a dynamic state, and to some extent involve contact with people. Human activities, including those of traditional societies and local communities, often occur in natural areas. These activities may be consistent with the outstanding universal value of the area where they are ecologically sustainable.
91. In addition, for properties nominated under criteria (vii) to (x), a corresponding condition of integrity has been defined for each criterion.
92. Properties proposed under criterion (vii) should be of outstanding universal value and include areas that are essential for maintaining the beauty of the property. For example, a property whose scenic value depends on a waterfall, would meet the conditions of integrity if it includes adjacent catchment and downstream areas that are integrally linked to the maintenance of the aesthetic qualities of the property.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 23
93. Properties proposed under criterion (viii) should contain all or most of the key interrelated and interdependent elements in their natural relationships. For example, an “ice age” area would meet the conditions of integrity if it includes the snow field, the glacier itself and samples of cutting patterns, deposition and colonization (e.g. striations, moraines, pioneer stages of plant succession, etc.); in the case of volcanoes, the magmatic series should be complete and all or most of the varieties of effusive rocks and types of eruptions be represented.
94. Properties proposed under criterion (ix) should have sufficient size and contain the necessary elements to demonstrate the key aspects of processes that are essential for the long term conservation of the ecosystems and the biological diversity they contain. For example, an area of tropical rain forest would meet the conditions of integrity if it includes a certain amount of variation in elevation above sea level, changes in topography and soil types, patch systems and naturally regenerating patches; similarly a coral reef should include, for example, seagrass, mangrove or other adjacent ecosystems that regulate nutrient and sediment inputs into the reef. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 24 f the World Heritage Convention
95. Properties proposed under criterion (x) should be the most important properties for the conservation of biological diversity. Only those properties which are the most biologically diverse and/or representative are likely to meet this criterion. The properties should contain habitats for maintaining the most diverse fauna and flora characteristic of the bio-geographic province and ecosystems under consideration. For example, a tropical savannah would meet the conditions of integrity if it includes a complete assemblage of co-evolved herbivores and plants; an island ecosystem should include habitats for maintaining endemic biota; a property containing wide ranging species should be large enough to include the most critical habitats essential to ensure the survival of viable populations of those species; for an area containing migratory species, seasonal breeding and nesting sites, and migratory routes, wherever they are located, should be adequately protected.
II.F Protection and management
96. Protection and management of World Heritage properties should ensure that the outstanding universal value, the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity at the time of inscription are maintained or enhanced in the future.
97. All properties inscribed on the World Heritage List must have adequate long-term legislative, regulatory, institutional and/or traditional protection and management to ensure their safeguarding. This protection should include adequately delineated boundaries. Similarly States Parties should demonstrate adequate protection at the national, regional, municipal, and/or traditional level for the nominated property. They should append appropriate texts to the nomination with a clear explanation of the way this protection operates to protect the property.
Legislative, regulatory and contractual measures for protection
98. Legislative and regulatory measures at national and local levels should assure the survival of the property and its protection against development and change that might negatively impact the outstanding universal value, or the integrity and/or authenticity of the property. States Parties should also assure the full and effective implementation of such measures.
Boundaries for effective protection
99. The delineation of boundaries is an essential requirement in
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 25
the establishment of effective protection of nominated properties. Boundaries should be drawn to ensure the full expression of the outstanding universal value and the integrity and/or authenticity of the property.
100. For properties nominated under criteria (i) – (vi), boundaries should be drawn to include all those areas and attributes which are a direct tangible expression of the outstanding universal value of the property, as well as those areas which in the light of future research possibilities offer potential to contribute to and enhance such understanding.
101. For properties nominated under criteria (vii) – (x), boundaries should reflect the spatial requirements of habitats, species, processes or phenomena that provide the basis for their inscription on the World Heritage List. The boundaries should include sufficient areas immediately adjacent to the area of outstanding universal value in order to protect the property’s heritage values from direct effect of human encroachments and impacts of resource use outside of the nominated area.
102. The boundaries of the nominated property may coincide with one or more existing or proposed protected areas, such as national parks or nature reserves, biosphere reserves or protected historic districts. While such established areas for protection may contain several management zones, only some of those zones may satisfy criteria for inscription.
Buffer zones
103. Wherever necessary for the proper conservation of the property, an adequate buffer zone should be provided.
104. For the purposes of effective protection of the nominated property, a buffer zone is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection. The area constituting the buffer zone should be determined in each case through appropriate mechanisms. Details on the size, characteristics and authorized uses of a buffer zone, as well as a map indicating the precise boundaries of the property and its buffer zone, should be provided in the nomination.
105. A clear explanation of how the buffer zone protects the property should also be provided.
106. Where no buffer zone is proposed, the nomination should
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 26 f the World Heritage Convention
include a statement as to why a buffer zone is not required.
107. Although buffer zones are not normally part of the nominated property, any modifications to the buffer zone subsequent to inscription of a property on the World Heritage List should be approved by the World Heritage Committee.
Management systems
108. Each nominated property should have an appropriate management plan or other documented management system which should specify how the outstanding universal value of a property should be preserved, preferably through participatory means.
109. The purpose of a management system is to ensure the effective protection of the nominated property for present and future generations.
110. An effective management system depends on the type, characteristics and needs of the nominated property and its cultural and natural context. Management systems may vary according to different cultural perspectives, the resources available and other factors. They may incorporate traditional practices, existing urban or regional planning instruments, and other planning control mechanisms, both formal and informal.
111. In recognizing the diversity mentioned above, common elements of an effective management system could include:
a) a thorough shared understanding of the property by all stakeholders;
b) a cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback;
c) the involvement of partners and stakeholders;
d) the allocation of necessary resources;
e) capacity-building; and
f) an accountable, transparent description of how the management system functions.
112. Effective management involves a cycle of long-term and day-to-day actions to protect, conserve and present the nominated property.
113. Moreover, in the context of the implementation of the
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 27
Convention, the World Heritage Committee has established a process of Reactive Monitoring (see Chapter IV) and a process of Periodic Reporting (see Chapter V).
114. In the case of serial properties, a management system or
mechanisms for ensuring the co-ordinated management of
the separate components are essential and should be
documented in the nomination (see paragraphs 137- 139).
115. In some circumstances, a management plan or other management system may not be in place at the time when a property is nominated for the consideration of the World Heritage Committee. The State Party concerned should then indicate when such a management plan or system would be put in place, and how it proposes to mobilize the resources required for the preparation and implementation of the new management plan or system. The State Party should also provide other document(s) (e.g. operational plans) which will guide the management of the site until such time when a management plan is finalized.
116. Where the intrinsic qualities of a property nominated are
threatened by action of man and yet meet the criteria and the
conditions of authenticity or integrity set out in paragraphs
78- 95, an action plan outlining the corrective measures
required should be submitted with the nomination file.
Should the corrective measures submitted by the nominating
State Party not be taken within the time proposed by the
State Party, the property will be considered by the
Committee for delisting in accordance with the procedure
adopted by the Committee (see Chapter IV.C).
117. States Parties are responsible for implementing effective management activities for a World Heritage property. State Parties should do so in close collaboration with property managers, the agency with management authority and other partners, and stakeholders in property management.
118. The Committee recommends that States Parties include risk preparedness as an element in their World Heritage site management plans and training strategies.
Decision 28 COM 10B.4
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 28 f the World Heritage Convention
Sustainable use
119. World Heritage properties may support a variety of ongoing and proposed uses that are ecologically and culturally sustainable. The State Party and partners must ensure that such sustainable use does not adversely impact the outstanding universal value, integrity and/or authenticity of the property. Furthermore, any uses should be ecologically and culturally sustainable. For some properties, human use would not be appropriate.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 29
III. PROCESS FOR THE INSCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST
III.
A Preparation of Nominations
120. The nomination document is the primary basis on which the Committee considers the inscription of the properties on the World Heritage List. All relevant information should be included in the nomination document and it should be cross-referenced to the source of information.
121.
Annex 3 provides guidance to States Parties in preparing nominations of specific types of properties.
122.
Before States Parties begin to prepare a nomination of a property for inscription on the World Heritage List, they should become familiar with the nomination cycle, described in Paragraph 168.
123.
Participation of local people in the nomination process is essential to enable them to have a shared responsibility with the State Party in the maintenance of the property. States Parties are encouraged to prepare nominations with the participation of a wide variety of stakeholders, including site managers, local and regional governments, local communities, NGOs and other interested parties.
124.
Preparatory Assistance, as described in Chapter VII.E, may be requested by States Parties for the preparation of nominations.
125.
States Parties are encouraged to contact the Secretariat, which can provide assistance throughout the nomination process.
126. The Secretariat can also provide:
a) assistance in identifying appropriate maps and photographs and the national agencies from which these may be obtained;
b) examples of successful nominations, of management and legislative provisions;
c) guidance for nominating different types of properties, such as Cultural Landscapes, Towns, Canals, and Heritage Routes (see Annex 3)
d) g
uidance for nominating serial and transboundary properties (see paragraphs 134- 139).
127.
States Parties may submit draft nominations to the Secretariat
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 30 f the World Heritage Convention
for comment and review by 30 September of each year (see paragraph 168). This submission of a draft nomination is voluntary.
128. Nominations may be submitted at any time during the year,
but only those nominations that are “complete” (see
paragraph 132) and received by the Secretariat on or before 1
February will be considered for inscription on the World
Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee during the
following year. Only nominations of properties included in
the State Party’s Tentative List will be examined by the
Committee (see paragraph 63).
III.B Format and content of nominations
129. Nominations of properties for inscription on the World Heritage List should be prepared in accordance with the format set out in Annex 5.
130. The format includes the following sections:
1. Identification of the Property
2. Description of the Property
3. Justification for Inscription
4. State of conservation and factors affecting the property
5. Protection and Management
6. Monitoring
7. Documentation
8. Contact Information of responsible authorities
9. S
ignature on behalf of the State Party(ies)
131.
Nominations to the World Heritage List are evaluated on content rather than on appearance.
132. For a nomination to be considered as “complete”, the following requirements are to be met:
1. Identification of the Property
The boundaries of the property being proposed shall be clearly
defined, unambiguously distinguishing between the nominated
property and any buffer zone (when present) (see paragraphs
103- 107). Maps shall be sufficiently detailed to determine
precisely which area of land and/or water is nominated.
Officially up-to-date published topographic maps of the State
Party annotated to show the property boundaries shall be
provided if available. A nomination shall be considered
“incomplete” if it does not include clearly defined boundaries.
2. Description of the Property
The Description of the property shall include the identification
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 31
of the property, and an overview of its history and development. All component parts that are mapped shall be identified and described. In particular, where serial nominations are proposed, each of the component parts shall be clearly described.
The History and Development of the property shall describe how the property has reached its present form and the significant changes that it has undergone. This information shall provide the important facts needed to support and give substance to the argument that the property meets the criteria of outstanding universal value and conditions of integrity and/or authenticity.
3. Justification for Inscription
This section shall indicate the World Heritage criteria (see
Paragraph 77) under which the property is proposed, together
with a clearly stated argument for the use of each criterion.
Based on the criteria, a proposed Statement of Outstanding
Universal Value (see paragraphs 49- 53and 155) of the property
prepared by the State Party shall make clear why the property
is considered to merit inscription on the World Heritage List. A
comparative analysis of the property in relation to similar
properties, whether or not on the World Heritage List, both at
the national and international levels, shall also be provided.
The comparative analysis shall explain the importance of the
nominated property in its national and international context.
Statements of integrity and/or authenticity shall be included
and shall demonstrate how the property satisfies the conditions
outlined in paragraphs 78- 95.
The comparative analyses prepared by States Parties when nominating properties for inscription in the World Heritage List should not be confused with the thematic studies prepared by the Advisory Bodies at the request of the Committee (paragraph 148 below)
Decision 7 EXT.COM 4A
4. State of conservation and factors affecting the property
This section shall include accurate information on the present state of conservation of the property (including information on its physical condition of the property and conservation measures in place). It shall also include a description of the factors affecting the property (including threats). Information provided in this section constitutes the baseline data which are necessary to monitor the state of conservation of the nominated property in the future.
5. Protection and management
Protection: Section 5 shall include the list of the legislative, regulatory, contractual, planning, institutional and/ or traditional measures most relevant to the protection of the property and provide a detailed analysis of the way in which this protection actually operates. Legislative, regulatory,
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation o 32 f the World Heritage Convention
contractual planning and/or institutional texts, or an abstract of the texts, shall also be attached in English or French.
Management: An appropriate management plan or other management system is essential and shall be provided in the nomination. Assurances of the effective implementation of the management plan or other management system are also expected.
A copy of the management plan or documentation of the management system shall be annexed to the nomination. If the management plan exists only in a language other than English or French, an English or French detailed description of its provisions shall be annexed.
A detailed analysis or explanation of the management plan or a documented management system shall be provided.
A nomination which does not include the above-mentioned
documents is considered incomplete unless other documents
guiding the management of the property until the finalization
of the management plan are provided as outlined in paragraph
115.
6. Monitoring
States Parties shall include the key indicators proposed to measure and assess the state of conservation of the property, the factors affecting it, conservation measures at the property, the periodicity of their examination, and the identity of the responsible authorities.
7. Documentation
All necessary documentation to substantiate the nomination shall be provided. In addition to what is indicated above, this shall include photographs, 35 mm slides, image inventory and photograph authorization form. The text of the nomination shall be transmitted in printed form as well as in electronic format (Diskette or CD-Rom).
8. Contact Information of responsible authorities
Detailed contact information of responsible authorities shall be provided.
9. Signature on behalf of the State Party
The nomination shall conclude with the original signature of the official empowered to sign it on behalf of the State Party.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention 33
10. Number of printed copies required

Study the notion of a ‘common heritage.’

UNESCO World Heritage Convention – startpage

Contents

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

1. Introduction

2. Aspects of a Common Heritage

2.1. Interpretations of ‘Common Heritage’

2.2.1. Shared responsibility

2.2.2. Shared resources

2.2.3. Shared history

2.4. Monumentalism and Westernisation?

2.5. Summary

3. Common Heritage at Local Levels

3.1. Acceptance of the term ‘common heritage’

3.2. Presentation and preservation of World Heritage sites

3.3. Minority groups, local communities and World Heritage

3.4. Impact on the sites after designation

3.5. Curators and the List

3.6. Summary

4. National and Common Heritage

4.1. Memory and global culture

4.2. National and Cosmopolitan

5. Conclusion

References

Survey sources

ICOMOS Documents

Newspapers

RA Document

UNESCO Documents

WHC Documents

World Wide Web sources

Bibliography

Appendix: Questionnaire (not available on the web)

2 Aspects of a Common Heritage

The objective of this chapter is to study the notion of a ‘common heritage.’ I intend first to discuss whether World Heritage sites are a ‘common heritage.’ Thereafter I will identify three different interpretations of heritage being held in common, before I analyse the composition of this heritage.

2.1. Interpretations of ‘Common Heritage’

A central idea behind the Convention is that it relies on an argument of cultural heritage being held in common, but it is important to have in mind that the Convention never uses the term ‘common heritage,’ but ‘World Heritage’ and ‘heritage of mankind.’(1)

However, both the background for the Convention and references in literature to the Convention make it clear that ‘World Heritage’ and ‘heritage of mankind’ is a ‘common heritage.’ Two recent promotional leaflets from WHC say for example: ‘World Heritage sites belong to all peoples of the world, irrespectively of the territory on which they are located,’(2) and ‘these monuments and sites constitute… a common heritage, to be treasured as unique testimonies to an enduring past. Their disappearance would be an irreparable loss for each and every one of us.’(3)

The notion of a ‘common heritage’ goes further back than the Convention. The Athens Conference in October 1931 – organised under the auspices of the League of Nations – was convinced ‘that the question of the conservation of the artistic and archaeological property of mankind is one that interests the community of the states, which are wardens of civilization.’(4) The Nubian action in the 1960s served as a catalyst for the concept of a ‘common heritage,’ and the essential lesson that emerged from this campaign was that in ‘the duty of conserving common property, mankind recognizes its own oneness through time and space, through the centuries and the nations, and proclaims the unity of its destiny.’(5) In 1970 it was also written that ‘historic monuments are the adornments with which Man has decked the earth; they are the common heritage of mankind and remind us that civilization is made up of contributions from all peoples….’(6)

However, in the context of the Convention not all cultural heritage is viewed as ‘common,’ and a comparison of all three UNESCO conventions concerning protection of cultural heritage confuses the picture: the conventions have divergent interpretations of heritage. The 1954 Hague Convention concerning protection in wartime views all culture as the cultural heritage of all mankind,(7) while the 1970 Convention regarding trade of cultural property is framed within a nationalistic notion of cultural heritage.(8)

According to the Convention, it is immovables and tangibles of ‘outstanding universal value’ that require collective protection and this is the designating factor for heritage to be World Heritage,(9) but even if a site is not on the List, it can have ‘outstanding universal value.’(10) Despite the importance of this criterion it is not defined in the Convention or the Operational Guidelines, and a major philosophical problem is that the existence of universal value implies the existence of universal concepts, a highly controversial issue and focus for much debate in the philosophy of history. In the context of the Convention the debate ranges from Titchen who asserts that ‘heritage of outstanding universal value exist,’(11) to Cleere who – with the possible exception of Palaeontological or Paleolithic sites – doubts cultural properties can possess universal value.(12)

The problem of universality was already on the agenda at the first session of the Committee in 1977 when ICOMOS expressed the problem of drafting criteria that could ‘be applied throughout the world and of translating concepts into words that were meaningful on a universal scale.’(13) IUCN expressed the view in 1979 that the organisation interpreted ‘universal value’ to mean that only the best natural property of its kind should be inscribed on the List,(14) and Thorsell has recently said that the List is ‘the Nobel Prize or the Hall of Fame of national parks.’(15) However, in 1979 it was recognised that selection is more difficult for cultural properties where ’several properties of the same family might have intrinsic universal value.’(16)

Regardless of the problem of defining and understanding what universality means, the term governs the Committee when it decides if a property is of universal value. Train called the Committee during the twentieth anniversary of the Convention in 1992 to continue to ‘identify the best of the best,’(17) reflecting a restrictive view of World Heritage which Michel Parent gave an account for in 1988:

It is true that everything belongs to history and that the whole of nature and all human artefacts leave traces worthy of interpretation. But the world is changing rapidly and if the truly essential of the heritage is not given special universal recognition, then even they may be swept away by the forces of change. If this happens, the notion of permanent value and its expression in specific sites and artefacts may be lost.(18)

The Committee often decides that a site is only of national importance, a conclusion many countries find hard.(19) For example, when Norway in 1979 nominated the building where the Constitution was adopted in 1814, the Bureau said it was undoubtedly of national importance.(20) Afterwards the Director-General of the Directorate for Cultural Heritage wrote that the process of selection is painful, but necessary.(21)

Despite the fact that designated World Heritage is a ‘common heritage,’ none of the documents from UNESCO I have come across have given extensive attempts to explain the possibilities of a ‘common heritage.’ It is noteworthy that during the first session of the Committee in 1977 delegates asked for a statement of the philosophy underlying the Convention.(22) I will therefore identify some interpretations of the concept of a ‘common heritage,’ and it is my position that it must be interpreted in various vays. Interpretations are distorted by different usages and compositions of the concepts ‘common heritage,’ ‘World Heritage’ and ‘heritage of humankind.’ Another problem is that the term ‘heritage’ is hard to define, but I will not define this concept.

Emphasis will be on ‘common’ as indicating ’shared.’ In an address to the Committee at the twentieth anniversary of the Convention in 1992 Frederico Mayor, the Director-General of UNESCO, stressed that ‘the World Heritage must be a shared inheritance in every sense of the term,’(23) and in April 1995 he emphasised ‘the need for a collective effort by the international community to promote the concept of a shared human heritage which transcends national boundaries.’(24) I will focus on three interpretations of shared: shared responsibility, shared resources and shared history.

2.2.1. Shared responsibility

‘Common heritage’ can denote a shared responsibility and a moral duty to participate in the protecting and passing down of the cultural heritage of all people of the world for future generations. The duty represents a ‘global stewardship,’(25) where the earth is viewed – in the term of the economist Boulding – as a ’spaceship,’(26) and the Convention is a tool of a global conservation ethic. Expressions of this duty include for example financial assistance from the Fund and a respect for other people’s heritage. This interpretation of ‘common heritage’ does not necessarily affect any questions of ownership; the cultural heritage can still belong to the people who created it.(27)

The Fund was established with the adoption of the Convention and is managed by the Committee.(28) A history of the background to the Convention,(29) shows that the creation of this Fund was an important factor behind the adoption of the Convention, but there is a compound of attitudes to the shared responsibility of protecting cultural heritage in other countries.

The third General Conference of UNESCO in 1948 recalled the UNESCO Constitution – which calls for the ‘protection of the world’s inheritance of books, works of art and monuments of history and science’(30) – and requested the possibility of establishing a fund to subsidise preservation and restoration.(31) Several suggestions for a fund were made, but studies stopped at the beginning of the 1950s and were not taken up again before 1962 when the General Conference adopted a resolution to resume the study.(32)

A study carried out in 1963 suggested that contributions from the fund should ‘provide particular States with the financial assistance needed to carry out essential work for the preservation, restoration and presentation of monuments of world interest existing in their territory.’(33) The attitude to a fund among the member states was in 1963 mixed and Syria’s Department of Antiquities, for example, expressed a strong concern for a fund that would contribute only to masterpieces recognised by the international community:

The real danger threatening mankind with impoverishment of its legacy of monuments is the general tendency to make do with a few fine specimens of a country’s architectural history and to neglect the others…. The cultural heritage of any one country is a complete whole, and it is very dangerous to break this up by putting forward international standards which give preference exclusively to safeguarding masterpieces.(34)

The United States found ‘the suggestion of an international fund neither convincing nor realistic,’(35) but despite this negative attitude it was the United States that in 1965 called for a World Heritage Trust. According to Train the idea of a Trust emerged in discussions between him and Joseph Fisher under the White House Conference of International Co-operation, 29 November – 1 December 1965.(36 The conference was a result of the UN designation of 1965 as an International Co-operation Year to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the UN, ‘convinced that a designated period may serve both to direct attention to the common interests of mankind and to accelerate the joint efforts being undertaken to further them.’(37)

Despite many years of effort to create the Fund, the debate before the final adoption of the Convention the 16 November 1972 illustrates a mixed attitude towards contributing to the Fund. Several countries wished to replace the wording in Article 16 ’shall’ with ‘ought to’ contribute to the Fund. Among these countries were the United States, Thailand and the delegate from the United Kingdom who said: ‘I have to say that if the word “shall” remains, this paragraph will be quite unacceptable to the United Kingdom and I know also many other countries who are certainly not the least wealthy.’(38) However, the delegate from India said: ‘… the delegation of India supported the principle of compulsory contribution… because it involves equal partnership and equal commitment on the part of all Member States. The Convention regards all participating States as equal partners, fully equal partners, in a great enterprise.’(39)

Another aspect of ‘common’ as denoting shared responsibility is the duty and respect of the State Parties not to damage any of the cultural heritage situated on the territory of other countries.(40) The Convention is therefore – as a former Vice-Chairman of the Committee, Tschudi-Madsen, puts it – ‘a lesson in modesty and understanding of other people and their heritage.’(41) This obligation is interpreted differently, and when Iraq and Syria entered the Convention it was stated that this should not signify recognition of or entering into relations with Israel.(42) On 16 November, when the General Conference of UNESCO had finished the debate concerning the Convention – adopted it with 75 for, 1 against and 17 abstentions – only the American delegate had more to add: ‘First of all, more or less as a footnote, we would like to say that there is one aspect on which the United States wishes to clarify its interpretation of the Convention – it is clear that this Convention is not intended to impose or govern obligations in cases of armed conflict.’(43) This ambiguity has obviously set its mark in cases of war, where several designated sites have been damaged.(44)

The shortcoming of the Convention in cases of war – and especially internal conflicts – is one of the major limitations of the Convention,(45) and in 1993 a paragraph that refers to the 1954 Hague Convention was first included in the Operational Guidelines.(46) The 1954 Hague Convention has not been viable for protection of cultural heritage, and the register of properties to be protected under this Convention contained by November 1994 only one site, the Vatican City State. UNESCO is currently working to get cultural sites of States Parties to both conventions also registered for protection under the 1954 Hague Convention.(47) However, a reinforcement of the 1954 Hague Convention might have an opposite effect, and designation of sites might mark these out for special destruction, as seen in Yugoslavia where Dubrovnik and Split were damaged.(48)

2.2.2. Shared resources

The second interpretation of ‘common heritage,’ is that it denotes shared resources. The rationale behind this interpretation is that the cultural heritage is a legacy for all.(49) This interpretation of ‘common heritage’ has been understood as a right of the world community to use the heritage in other countries. If the first interpretation of ‘common heritage’ is an important duty, this interpretation represents own interests. The past is a resource to be used and enjoyed by all, and it represents a utilitarian view of the past.(50)

When the White House Conference on International Co-operation in 1965 called for a World Heritage Trust, it was this interest in the past that was emphasised when the Committee on Conservation and Development of Natural Resources suggested:

The world community has an interest not only in the resources that produce the raw materials for economic development but also in the resources that are a part of its heritage. Certain natural, scenic, and historic resources are unique and irreplaceable and should be shared by all peoples of the world. Establishment of an international trust could, where necessary, help the host countries to preserve and maintain these resources for the benefit of present and future generations of all mankind – such resources as the Serengeti Plains, Angel Falls, Angkor, the Grand Canyon of the Colorado, or the ruins of Incan cities.(51)

Rights of the world community to the heritage in other countries have been strongly emphasised by writers such as Merryman: ‘…people in other nations have an interest in archaeological and ethnographic objects in Peru and in paintings in Italian churches. They are the cultural heritage of all mankind, not merely of Peruvians and Italians.’(52) Williams expresses similar views when she develops her concept of a ‘common heritage of humankind:’ ‘cultural property is a medium through which the peoples of the world may gain intellectual exchange and thus they have a right to claim access to it.’(53)

This interpretation of the ‘common heritage’ concept raises several ethical questions. It has been much criticised, especially from indigenous people. In Norway the view has been expressed that the concept represents a new colonisation and a way of obtaining the past of others by underhand means.(54) From an Australian perspective it has been emphasised that the concept of a ‘common heritage of humankind’ represents rights of the white man,(55) and it is a means of excluding people with particular interests in the cultural heritage.(56)

2.2.3. Shared history

An interpretation of ‘common heritage’ as denoting shared history, will here be interpreted in two different ways. First, it denotes contact between people and cultures in the past. Second, it is a grand narrative, or metanarrative, of the ‘common heritage of humankind’ where the aim is the promotion of world peace.

The first interpretation of ‘common heritage’ as shared history can follow world-system models,(57) and take into account cultural contact between people in the past. During the World Conference on Cultural Policies in 1982 this was stated: ‘in the reciprocal influences they [cultures] exert on one another, all cultures form part of the common heritage.’(58) Cultural interaction has been used as an argument by the Council of Europe to justify that the Elgin Marbles should be perceived as a ‘common heritage of Europe,’(59) and in 1984 interaction was suggested to be taken into consideration for inscription on the List, because ‘the List is becoming a long enumeration of such diverse elements that it is difficult for the broader public to understand the rationale behind it.’(60)

However, cultural interaction does not seem to have any major impact on inscriptions on the List and many countries want to protect what is particularly their heritage. A former President of Colombia, Borrero, said in 1992: ‘Colombia is still a young nation…. In order to create its own destiny and not one borrowed from other nations, it is necessary to conserve the legacy of previous generations. To create and conserve its own features is the great compromise that will unify the national being.’(61)

The second interpretation of ‘common’ as denoting shared history is to emphasise not specifically the role of contact between the individual cultures, but humanity as a whole – ‘world heritage of mankind.’(62)

Heritage of humankind can be interpreted to reflect the Enlightenment position of thinking and writing history in terms of humankind,(63) and I interpret the List to reflect a Renaissance and Enlightenment desire to ‘establish the position of mankind in the grand scheme of things.’(64) Similar notions of humankind antedate the Enlightenment, and Kristeva has emphasised the ancient philosopher Meneander who says: ‘I am a man, and nothing human is foreign to me.’(65) In a similar way, World Heritage shows the universality of human expressions, and reminds us what it is to be human.(66)

This notion of a common history of humankind can be viewed as a metanarrative, a common myth which aims at unity instead of division.(67) Culture has historically been divisive, but is now interpreted as a unifying force of internationalism,(68) and World Heritage sites become – in the words of the President of China, Shangkun – ‘one of the friendly links between the world’s people….’(69)

The ultimate goal of this metanarrative is not conservation – conservation is a tool only to achieve a higher goal – but peace among people, which is the ultimate aim of UNESCO: ‘That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed.’(70) This was one of the roles of World Heritage sites Mayor emphasised during the twentieth anniversary of the Convention in 1992; they ’serve to remind humanity of its unity in diversity and thereby contribute powerfully to one of UNESCO’s essential goals – the promotion of mutual understanding and solidarity among peoples….’(71)

After these interpretations of what a ‘common heritage’ denote, I will search for the nature of this heritage.

Figure 2.1. Distribution of cultural and mixed World Heritage sites at continents. Left: Distribution of sites currently inscribed on the List (1978-1996). Right: Distribution of sites inscribed in 1995 and 1996.(72)

2.4. Monumentalism and Westernisation?

Analysis of the List immediately gives the impression of a ‘common heritage’ that is dominated by Europe (figure 2.1.), some large countries (2.2.) and sites of a monumental character.

Europe has clearly the highest number of sites on the List, while Africa is the continent with least sites on the List. The ten States Parties with most sites on the List are responsible for almost 40% of the cultural World Heritage. Remaining ninety-seven States Parties with cultural or natural sites on the List are responsible for 60% of the cultural sites on the List. France and Spain take the leadership, each with twenty-one cultural sites inscribed.

Analysis of the List in categories of sites shows that highest representation on the List are by historic towns (28%), archaeological sites (26%) and Christian monuments (20%). Religious monuments that are not Christian have a minor representation on the List (8%).(73) The majority of sites are of a monumental character.

Figure 2.2. The ten States Parties with majority of cultural and mixed World Heritage sites.(74)

These three analyses demonstrate that certain cultural manifestations are favoured more than others as forming part of the World Heritage.(75) This Western attitude to cultural heritage was strongly criticised by the World Commission on Culture and Development in 1995:

[The Convention] was conceived, supported and nurtured by the industrially developed societies, reflecting concern for a type of heritage that was highly valued in those countries. The World Heritage List… reflects a framework which is not really appropriate for the kinds of heritage most common in regions where cultural energies have been concentrated in other forms of expression such as artefacts, dance or oral traditions.(76)

Despite a List favouring European heritage, there is a strong concern that it should be more representative. The Bureau suggested at its first meeting in 1978 that to attain a balanced List, each country should limit themselves to two nominations for the first inscription.(77) IUCN expressed the view in 1979 that delegates to the Committee should not advocate for nominations submitted by their own countries, but limit themselves to clarifying the information already provided.(78) In 1981 the Committee realised that the List was still not fully representative of the heritage of the whole world and stated that the ‘List should be as representative as possible.’(79)

However, it is doubtful whether it is possible to create such a thing as a representative List that reflects human culture. Human culture is not a fixed entity, and all attempts to grasp the varieties of culture will conflict with the problem of representativity. A major problem is that in a World Heritage context, culture is perceived by an international Committee outside given cultures. This problem has already been expressed during the first session of the Committee in 1977.(80) Cleere has also demonstrated that a large number of European cathedrals have been inscribed on the List because these monuments have a secure aesthetic and art-historical standard. When the Committee discusses less appealing categories, there is a tendency that these are deferred for comparative studies.(81)

The debate concerning a representative List has culminated in the launch of a Global Strategy, which has been said to shock some of the Convention’s fundamental ideas.(82) Emphasis is on traditional and living cultures and cultural landscapes are one new category of sites.(83) When experts suggested the Global Strategy in 1994, they would sett aside a rigid and restricted List and

instead take into account all the possibilities for extending and enriching it by means of new types of property whose value might become apparent as knowledge and ideas developed. The List should be receptive to the many and varied cultural manifestation of outstanding universal value through which cultures expressed themselves.(84)

The Global Strategy seems to demonstrate a possible change in emphasis from perception from outside the culture to inside. During the first Global Strategy meeting in Harare, Zimbabwe, October 1995, Southern-African cultural heritage was discussed in relation to the Convention. Participants at this meeting stated that ‘Africans themselves are best placed to tell us exactly what the universal and exceptional aspects of their physical heritage are.’(85)

Despite all these efforts to create a representative List, it has still not succeeded (figure 2.1., right). Europe has continued to increase the number of sites after the launch of the Global Strategy. Of the nominations for consideration for inscription on the List during the twenty-first session of the Committee, December 1997, 63% come from Europe.(86)

It is debatable if the attempts to make a balanced List will succeed. First, there is not only a Western hegemony in perception of what cultural heritage is, but also in the management of World Heritage. Despite a new emphasis on viewing universality from inside a given culture, World Heritage activities are still executed under the auspices of the world community. The expert meeting that launched a Global Strategy in 1994 was held in Paris and dominated by participants from the Western world; the Global Strategy meeting in 1995 was attended by experts and international observers from Europe; there is an imbalance in the Committee, noted by Algeria in 1987.(87) Second, it is doubtful if it is possible to create an inventory of the diversity of human culture by identifying cultural heritage of ‘outstanding universal value.’ We express ourselves in a variety of ways that are not outstanding, but represent the daily life. The capturing of the condition of humankind in what is universal is therefore a poor representation of what it is to be human. Third, inscription of new categories of sites from traditional cultures that are still living and with emphasis, inter alia, on spiritural and creative expressions, might raise new ethical dilemma. The world community’s enjoyment of this heritage is more controversial than the enjoyment of heritage of ‘dead’ cultures. Fourth, the emphasis on representativity of the List calls into question what function it has. If the preparatory work of the Convention emphasised the importance of conservation or enjoyment of cultural heritage, the focus on balance seems to denote that the major function of the List is to capture the position of humankind in sites and monuments.

2.5. Summary

The discussion has shown that the concept of a ‘common heritage’ reflects a variety of meanings. It also demonstrates that not all heritage is a ‘common heritage,’ and those expressions that constitute the World Heritage are dominated by the Western culture. After coming to this recognition, I will direct my attention to various local levels and see in what way the designation of a World Heritage has an impact and try to identify some of the commitments to a ‘common heritage.’

Footnotes

(1) UNESCO 1972: Preamble

(2) UNESCO 1996a

(3) UNESCO 1997?

(4) www.icomos.org/docs/athens_charter.html

(5) UNESCO 1970a: 48 (my emphasis)

(6) UNESCO 1970a: 9 (my emphasis)

(7) UNESCO 1954: Preamble

(8) UNESCO 1970b: Preamble

(9) UNESCO 1972: Preamble

(10) UNESCO 1972: Article 12

(11) Titchen 1995: 1

(12) Cleere 1996: 228. The position here is similar to that taken for example by Clark when he wrote his world prehistory (Clark 1961). Prehistory is seen as the uniting factor of all people, and the only history that can be common to all civilisations (Clark 1939/1968: 263 and 1970: 51). Similar view is also expressed by Daniel (1962/1964: 166). An underlying assumption is that material traces of the past can not necessarily be associated with the people living in the same area thousands of year later, and serving as symbols of nations. The main bond is that they also live there (Johansen 1990:239). Prehistory should from this point of view appear somehow anonymous, but the result might be the opposite – claim from more groups of ownership (see Chippendale et al. 1990).

(13) UNESCO Doc. 17 October 1977: § 19

(14) UNESCO Doc. 20 July 1979: § 13

(15) Waldron 1992: 9. Thorsell is advisor for IUCN concerning nominations of natural sites to the List.

(16) UNESCO Doc. 20 July 1979: § 13

(17) UNESCO Doc. 14 December 1992: INF 1/4. Train was in 1992 chairman of the World Wildlife Fund and the Conservation Foundation.

(18) Parent 1988: 32. Parent was a member of the committee that drafted the Convention, later chairman of the Committe and president of ICOMOS 1981-1987.

(19) Prott 1992a: 83

(20) UNESCO Doc. 20 July 1979: Annex II/7

(21) RA Doc. 1980? It is noteworthy that in context of the Convention is the concept of World Heritage protected, and not all of the worlds’ inheritance is a World Heritage. The Committee objected in 1979 against the name of an organisation in the UK bearing the name ‘World Heritage Association’ and stated that ‘the term “World Heritage” should be strictly limited to those activities directly related to the Convention’ (UNESCO Doc. 30 November 1979b: 4), and in 1980 a paragraph concerning protection of the name was included in the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO Doc. 29 September 1980: § 31, UNESCO 1997b: § 124).

(22) UNESCO Doc. 17 October 1977: § 17

(23) UNESCO Doc. 14 December 1992: INF 2/3

(24) UNESCO Doc. 27-29 April 1995: Annex C

(25) Tanner-Kaplash 1989: 16

(26) Boulding 1966

(27) Strati 1995: 440

(28) UNESCO 1972: Articles 15-26

(29) Titchen 1995: 40ff

(30) www.unesco.org/general/eng/about/constitution/index.html: Article 2(c)

(31) UNESCO Doc. 1948: Resolution 6.43

(32) UNESCO Doc. 28 June 1963: 2-3

(33) UNESCO Doc. 28 June 1963: 2-3 (my emphasis)

(34) UNESCO Doc. 16 June 1964: Annex 2: 22

(35) UNESCO Doc. 16 June 1964: 2

(36) Train 1992: 377. Fisher was then president of Resources for the Future.

(37) UN 1962: Resolution 1844

(38) UNESCO Doc. 1972: 1110

(39) UNESCO Doc. 1972: 1117

(40) UNESCO 1972: § 3

(41) Newspapers: Aftenposten, Thursday 18 April 1985 (my translation)

(42) UNESCO 1983/1985: 98

(43) UNESCO Doc. 1972: 1124

(44) Cf. Cleere 1992, Prott 1992

(45) Pressouyre 1996: 9ff

(46) UNESCO Doc. 4 February 1994: XIV.2, UNESCO 1997b: § 139

(47) UNESCO Doc. 16 November 1994: § 3

(48) Chapman 1994: 122

(49) Mayor 1988: 4

(50) Hodder 1993: 13

(51) Gardner 1966: 142 (my emphasis)

(52) Merryman 1983: 759 (my emphasis). See also 1985 (pages 1895, 1916, 1923) and 1986. However, Merryman’s major concern is a possible contadiction between the common heritage of mankind principle in the 1954 Hague Convention and a cultural nationalism in the 1970 Convention.

(53) Williams 1978: 52 (my emphasis)

(54) Magga 1990: 120

(55) Langford 1983: 4

(56) Bowdler 1988: 521

(57) Cf. Wallerstein 1974, Wolf 1982

(58) UNESCO 1982: 17

(59) Greenfield 1989: 82

(60) Anne Raidl, quoted from Cleere 1993b: 13

(61) Borrero 1992: 86

(62) UNESCO 1972: Preamble

(63) Harbsmeier 1989: 94, Randall 1926/1976: 371

(64) Impey & MacGregor 1985: 2

(65) Kristeva 1991: 56, 1993: 20

(66) Wheatley 1997: 3

(67) Eriksen 1996: 81

(68) Tanner-Kaplash 1989: 201

(69) Shangkun 1992: 97

(70) www.unesco.org/general/eng/about/constitution/index.html: Preamble

(71) UNESCO Doc. 14 December 1992: INF 2/4

(72) Based on UNESCO 1997a. Middle-East, Armenia, Cyprus, Turkey and Uzbekistan are included under Asia/Pacific.

(73) This anaylsis is based on ICOMOS Doc. 1994? and Cleere 1996. Updated for 1994-1996 by me after UNESCO 1997a.

(74) Based on UNESCO 1997a

(75) Western World Heritage bias underlines a European dominance also evident in many writings of world prehistories (see Kohl 1989, Preucel & Hodder 1996: 521) and world histories (see Burke 1989 on the UNESCO writing of a history of humankind).

(76) Cuéllar 1995: 178

(77) UNESCO Doc. June 1978: §§ 20-21

(78) UNESCO Doc. 30 November 1979a: § 15

(79) UNESCO Doc. 5 January 1982: § 22

(80) UNESCO Doc. 17 October 1977: § 19

(81) Cleere 1993b: 11

(82) Boukhari 1996: 7

(83) Cf. Cleere 1995, Droste et al. 1995, Titchen 1995 and 1996

(84) UNESCO Doc. 28 June 1994: 3 (my emphasis)

(85) Berre & Messan 1995: 85

(86) ICOMOS Doc. May 1997

(87) UNESCO Doc. 20 January 1988: §§ 42-43