You are on page 1of 13

A UNIVERSAL WORLD HERITAGE

IDEALISTIC POLICIES SERVING A FRACTURED GLOBE

KAYLEE LINDAHL
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND CULTURAL POLICY
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

Introduction

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s World Heritage

Convention establishes a framework and outlines all the policies for UNESCO’s World Heritage

Centre. The Convention states that “cultural and natural heritage are of outstanding interest and

therefore need to be preserved as part of the world heritage of mankind as a whole” (World

Heritage Committee 1972; emphasis added). From the Convention’s origins to the present day,

the concept of “world heritage” or “universal value” has been disputed by scholars, politicians,

and community members. Unfortunately, even the policies outlined in the Convention and

descriptions in the “World Heritage Information Kit” are unable to explain how a site can

‘belong’ to all mankind.

To make matters worse, certain processes outlined in the World Heritage Convention’s

Rules of Procedure policy document prevents the institution from achieving its goal of a

universal world heritage. An ever-expanding organization stuck to a single model of governance

has allowed for the politicization of World Heritage sites, further desecrating the idea of

“outstanding universal value.”

The overarching idea of a shared world heritage is not flawed; there are countless benefits

to understanding another country’s culture. Yet the idealism found in the implementation of this

policy is in direct opposition with the fractured world in which we live. What changes need to be

made in order for this policy to effectively serve the diverse cultures of the world?

This paper will begin by addressing what scholars believe to be are the main issues with

the World Heritage Convention. First, is that it is a “western-directed” institution as evidenced

by its origins and the geographic location of World Heritage Sites. Second, even though the

1
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

organization has grown immensely, it has not adjusted its governance practices to account for

such change, resulting in ineffective governance. Third, there are ongoing disagreements about

whose culture is actually being represented, dividing the “west from the rest” and pushing local

communities out of their homes.

Next, this paper will evaluate the World Heritage Convention policy document, paying

particular attention to how it defines and applies the term “universal world heritage.” It will

outline the facts, goals, assumptions, and contradictions of the policy. Finally, it will offer

recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the Convention.

Problems of the World Heritage Convention

A “western-directed” institution
On November 16, 1972 twenty states-parties ratified the World Heritage Convention.

Despite the Convention’s policy that “outstanding natural and cultural heritage work to serve

humanity as a whole,” its foundation is western-oriented with a focus on colonialism (Meskell

2018). Discussions leading up to the Convention were heavily influenced by Julian Huxley, first

Director-General of UNESCO. Huxley, as well as other influential Europeans in the international

arena, believed in preserving the colonial lands to assert their superiority and improve European

economic and political influence (ibid). Furthermore, the whole idea of preservation is rooted in

western culture (Kawharu 2009). For example, Nepali craftsmen may prefer to replace rather

than repair cultural structures and Maori communities traditionally would have rather let a

meetinghouse rot or burn to the ground than preserve it (ibid). Colonists hoped to gain influence

and knowledge from such structures, so they had high incentives to preserve them.

2
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

World Heritage Site locations further illustrate the issue of a western-oriented institution.

There are currently 1,097 inscribed World Heritage Sites and 47% of them are in Europe and

North America (UNESCO 2019). The World Heritage General Assembly recently published a

new policy document called the Budapest Declaration on World Heritage with the intent to

“increase awareness and support for World Heritage as well as promote the establishment of new

partnerships” (World Heritage Committee 2002). Included in this new strategy is the goal to

invite more states parties to nominate sites, but it has yet to make a substantial difference in

balancing the number of sites across the globe (find citation).

Ineffective governance
It is best practice in governance to adjust the organizational structure as the institution

grows (Mathiasen 1990; Gross 2009; Stevens 2009). The World Heritage Convention has grown

from twenty states parties and twelve inscribed sites to 197 states parties and 1,097 sites. Despite

such immense growth, however, the governance structure has not changed. The organizational

structure of the World Heritage Convention is made up of three groups (“How the World

Heritage Convention Works 1983):

1. The World Heritage Committee: the policy and decision-making group. It determines

which sites make it on the list. It is comprised of 21 states parties. Terms last from

four to six years.

2. The Advisory Body: made of three nongovernmental organizations—the International

Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the International Council on Monuments

and Sites (ICOMOS), and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation

and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). It was created with the intent to

advise the Committee in the nomination selection process.

3
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

3. The World Heritage Centre: acts as the Secretariat and coordinator within UNESCO.

It provides international assistance and reporting on sites.

In order for a site to be nominated as a World Heritage Site, it must pass through various

stages. First, the states party must create a list of all possible sites within their borders that they

think would qualify for World Heritage status. In order for a site to qualify, it must “be of

outstanding universal value” and meet at least one out of ten selection criteria (UNESCO WHC).

Next, the states party must submit a list of final nominations to the Committee. Usually, the state

government is the sole decision-maker in determining whether the site fits one of the ten criteria.

Finally, the World Heritage Committee holds its annual meeting to determine which sites are

accepted. Ideally, the committee consults with the Advisory Body and select members of the

Secretariat to make final determinations.

Growth without change has led to a clash between the three governing bodies and what

many authors agree is a corrupt nomination system (Al-Harithy 2005; Meskell 2014; Djurberg

and Aasland date). Such a high number of states parties combined with the United Nations policy

that every country is allowed one vote has resulted in the ability for states parties to form pacts

and coalitions to meet their varying political motives (Al-Harithy 2005; Meskell 2014). Although

one-third of the Committee is replaced every two years, those coalitions allow certain states

parties to perpetually have a say in nomination determinations. Additionally, there is little to no

community involvement in the initial selection process of sites; governments nominate sites

based on their own economic and foreign policy goals and the locals are left out—and in some

cases, pushed out (Al-Harithy 2005). The Advisory Body is meant to provide expertise

throughout the decision-making process, but diplomats and their social circles have become

more influential than the archaeological and cultural experts, rendering the Advisory Bodies

4
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

useless (Rumann date). This politicization and fractured governance structure has created a

broken institution that struggles to carry out change (Meskell 2014).

Disagreement about whose heritage it is


Examining the definition of a “universal” world heritage with a historical lens, suggests

that at the time of its founding, “world heritage” was meant to imply “western heritage” (Meskell

2018; Frey et al 2011). Prior to the creation of the Convention, none of the discussions

mentioned artifacts that were within major European borders; colonists were concerned with

dividing up the spoils of the Middle East among themselves (Meskell 2018). In one instance, the

assistant keeper at the British Museum stated that “because museums did not exist in some of the

colonies, archaeological finds should be relocated so as to be accessible to ‘the world’” (Meskell

2018). In light of the fact that only the global elite could travel to those sites, it is clear that he

really meant ‘the western world.’

While many intended for the definition of a universal world heritage to imply western

access, Julian Huxley, a believer of economic and social collectivist theories, intended to

establish an organization that would form a single world culture, hence a “universal world

culture” (ibid). As UNESCO Director-General, Huxley initiated a radio program and later a book

called The History of Mankind, in which he attempted to trace the history of humanity. His

collectivist view did not prove successful as various country representatives fought over what

was fact and what or who should be eliminated from the story—the Russians drew upon their

Marxist perspectives and the Pakistanis asked that the word “India” be removed from the history

(ibid). Despite this conflict, the idea that a divided world could evolve into one with a universal

world culture persisted and found its way into the Convention.

5
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

In recent decades, the debate surrounding a universal world culture has evolved. In a

sense, it is still a question of “west versus the rest” (Gfeller and Eisenberg 2015) but the

terminology has changed. Nomination as a World Heritage Site has become a brand for tourism

on which governments capitalize to boost their economies (Al-Harithy 2005). Community

members are left out of the decision-making process, even though it is really their culture that is

being “preserved” (Rumann year). Therefore, “world heritage” still favors wealthy westerners

who can afford to travel the globe.

Policy Analysis
Facts
There are underling facts pertaining to “universal world heritage” that the Convention

describes. First, it defines universal world heritage as something with “outstanding universal

value” (site). It recognizes that natural and cultural sites are in danger because of man-made

causes, and states that there are not enough resources in every country to protect its own heritage.

To remedy that, it advocates for a collective protection agency to ensure that heritage is

preserved for future generations. At the same time, however, it emphasizes that although sites

become defined as “universal” heritage, it is still the duty of each individual state to protect and

preserve its sites.

Goals

Communicating a policy of a universal world heritage serves a number of goals. First and

foremost, it hopes to establish “a system of international cooperation and assistance designed to

support States Parties to the Convention in their efforts to conserve and identify that heritage”

(site). Through the process of preservation, it hopes for everyone to understand the value of
6
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

natural and cultural sites regardless of the borders in which they are located, and as a

consequence rally support on a national and local level to preserve items for future generations.

Ultimately, the declaration of a universal world heritage establishes the goal of collective

protection of natural and cultural heritage.

Assumptions

The facts and goals outlined in the policy document are idealistic and have proven to be

somewhat ineffective, even after over forty years. The Convention immediately assumes that all

states parties who ratify the document have a vested interest in other states parties’ heritage and

as such will not be prejudiced. Numerous examples throughout the document’s history show that

that is not true. The long-standing debates over sites in Israel and Palestine serve as a prime

example of this incorrect assumption. Additionally, the Convention assumes that the World

Heritage Committee will “ensure an equitable representation of the different regions and cultures

of the world” (site). As mentioned previously, not only is the institution western-oriented, but its

governance practices have become so politicized that the focus is no longer on equal

representation across the globe.

Contradictions

One of the main challenges of creating policies for an international organization (as

opposed to a sovereign country) is that not all countries subscribe to the same models of

communication. Most of the policies outlined in the Convention follow a nationalist-cultural or

development model of communication; however, not all states parties that have ratified the

document subscribe to those communication models. That has resulted in ineffective governance

and the inability to institute change. First, the idea behind a universal world culture follows a

7
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

nationalist-cultural model of communication. The institution’s origins were heavily influenced

by utopian ideals where there is a single global culture determined by a smaller group of

representatives, falling in line with this model of communication. The goals and assumptions of

the Convention are created with the intent of benefitting the collective, adding that “it is the duty

of the international community as a whole to cooperate” (Site Article 6). At the same time, some

of these policies fall in line with the development model of communication, whether implicitly

or explicitly. The document states that protection of heritage at the national level “often remains

incomplete because of the scale of the resources which it requires and of the insufficient

economic, scientific, and technological resources of the country where the property to be

protected is situated” (convention, p1). This is an example of an explicit development goal of the

Convention, namely to provide resources to preserve the universal heritage that belongs to

countries without the economic capabilities to protect sites themselves. More implicitly,

nomination as a World Heritage Site provides global advertising for the property and country

aiding in economic development (even if it is to the detriment of the site), which is one of the

primary reasons why countries nominate so many sites each year.

The nationalist-cultural and development models of communication are in direct

opposition to many western countries, especially the United States. The United States follows a

liberal model and places utmost importance on democracy and the rights of the individual. This

clash in models has led to ongoing disagreements between the United States and UNESCO,

under which the World Heritage Convention falls. In 1984, the United States withdrew from

UNESCO citing “antidemocratic leanings” among other issues (Congressional Research Service

site). After rejoining UNESCO, the United States again withdrew in 2018 because of the

organization’s politicization, disagreements about admitting Palestine as a member state, and the

8
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

United States’ minor influence despite its heavy monetary contributions (ibid). The nationalist-

cultural and liberal models contain inherent conflicts that will prevent the United States and

UNESCO from being able to move forward and enact change together. This case is an example

of the challenges the Convention faces with every country; the inability to address conflicting

communication models will prevent the World Heritage Convention from ever creating a

“universal world culture.”

Recommendations

This report shows how the term “universal world culture” can make varying implications

depending on the time period and who sits on the Committee. Therefore, the solution is not

necessarily to change those words in the Convention, but rather to alter the nomination process

so that it acknowledges whose culture is actually being represented. The Convention as well as

the World Heritage Rules and Procedures give states members of the Committee the power to

select who will advise them in the nomination process, advising them to choose “persons

qualified in the field of the cultural or natural heritage” (Convention site). That assumes that each

state party will put their cultural heritage above other more pressing foreign policy goals (e.g.

economic development, influence in the global arena). This policy should be changed so that the

Advisory Body, which is already comprised of archaeological and cultural professionals, should

select representatives from each country to advise the Committee. That would not only decrease

politicization of heritage sites (it is impossible to completely eliminate politics in an organization

majorly comprised of politicians), but also give opportunities to local experts who are not

involved in government but have higher stakes in the outcome of the sites.

9
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

There should also be stronger mechanisms in place for states parties or the Centre to

remove sites from the World Heritage List. The Convention states that universal world heritage

should be protected for future generations, but is it possible for a site to have “outstanding

universal value” forever? As the number of sites that are selected increases while the World

Heritage Centre’s budget to care for them decreases, preservation is becoming more of a

challenge. High rates of tourism combined with local governments’ mismanagement of sites

compounds preservation issues, leaving many sites either no longer representative of the culture

they were meant to share, or completely desecrated. If there was an easy process to remove sites

from the list, it would incentivize governments to be more intentional and careful about how

many sites are nominated.

Conclusion
The world is in a constant state of disarray and conflict, but the World Heritage

Convention exists to unify and protect its natural and man-made wonders. Growing divides

between nations make it increasingly difficult for the organization to accomplish these lofty, but

worthy, goals. The problems outlined in this report are not intended to discount the immense

contribution the organization has made. After all, countless sites have been preserved because of

its efforts. Under its current policies, the World Heritage Convention is not the most effective

solution for preserving and uniting cultures across the globe, but its message is important and

should be shared with the world.

10
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

Bibliography
Al-Harithy, Howayda. “[Reframing] World Heritage.” Traditional Dwellings and Settlements
Review, 17:1, 2005 (7-17). https://www.jstor.org/stable/41758301.
Bureau of Financial Management. “Statement of Compulsory Contributions as at 30 April 2019.”
World Heritage Committee, World Heritage Fund, April 2019.
https://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-fund.
Djurberg, Mats and Tora Aasland. “Reforming UNESCO’s World Heritage.” The Globalist, June
27, 2018. https://www.theglobalist.com/unesco-world-heritage-committee-reform/.
Dore, Bhavya. “Who Controls Cultural Heritage? Interview with Lucas Lixinski.” Hyperallergic,
December 31, 2018. https://hyperallergic.com/477859/who-controls-cultural-heritage/.
Durrer, Victoria, Toby Miller, and Dave OBrien. The Routledge Handbook of Global Cultural
Policy. London: Routledge, 2019.
Frey, Bruno S. and Lasse Steiner. “World Heritage List: does it make sense?” International
Journal of Cultural Policy, 17:5, 2011 (555-573).
Gfeller, Aurelie Elisa and Jaci Eisenberg. “Scaling the Local: Canada’s Rideau Canal and
Shifting World Heritage Norms.” Journal of World History, 26:3, September 2015 (491-
520). https://www.jstor.org/stable/43901773.
“How the World Heritage Convention Works.” Ambio, 12:3/4, 1983 (140-145).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4312901.
Kawharu, Merata. “Ancestral Landscapes and World Heritage from a Maori Viewpoint.” The
Journal of the Polynesian Society, 118:4, December 2009 (317-338).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20707498.
Meskell, Lynn. Future in Ruins: UNESCO, World Heritage, and the Dream of Peace. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2018.
Meskell, Lynn. “States of Conservation: Protection, Politics, and Pacting within UNESCO’s
World Heritage Committee.” Anthropological Quarterly, 87:1, 2014 (217-243).
Meskell, Lynn. “UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention at 40: Challenging the Economic and
Political Order of International Heritage Conservation.” Current Anthropology, 54:4,
August 2013 (483-494). https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/671136.
Rosenstein, Carole. Understanding Cultural Policy. New York, NY: Routledge, 2018.
Schmitt, Thomas M. “Global Cultural Governance: Decision-Making Concerning World
Heritage between Politics and Science.” Erdkunde, 63:2, April-June 2009 (103-121).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25648197.
Slatyer, Ralph O. “The Origin and Evloution of the World Heritage Convention.” Ambio, 12:3/4,
1983 (138-140). https://www.jstor.org/stable/4312900.

11
Kaylee Lindahl
IC&CP

U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. U.S. Withdrawal from the United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Author redacted.
IN10802. 2017
World Heritage Committee. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage. General Conference, 17th Session, Paris November 16, 1972.
World Heritage Committee. “World Heritage Information Kit.” UNESCO World Heritage
Centre, June 2008.
World Heritage Committee. The Budapest Declaration on World Heritage. World Heritage
Committee, 26th Session, Budapest, Hungary, June 2002.
UNESCO. Rules of Procedure. World Heritage Committee 39th Session, July 2015.
UNESCO. Mission Report: Venice and its Lagoon (Italy) (394). World Heritage Committee, 40th
session, October 2015.
UNESCO. “World Heritage List Statistics.” World Heritage Committee, 2019. Accessed June
2019. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/stat/.
UNESCO. “United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.” International
Organization, 1:1, February 1947 (130-133). https://www.jstor.org/stable/2703530.

12

You might also like