This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]On: 27 October 2013, At: 11:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of HeritageStudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjhs20

A new paradigm for the identification,nomination and inscription ofproperties on the World Heritage ListKishore Rao aa Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre , UNESCO , Paris,FrancePublished online: 12 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Kishore Rao (2010) A new paradigm for the identification, nomination andinscription of properties on the World Heritage List, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 16:3,161-172, DOI: 10.1080/13527251003620594

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527251003620594

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

International Journal of Heritage StudiesVol. 16, No. 3, May 2010, 161–172

ISSN 1352-7258 print/ISSN 1470-3610 online© 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13527251003620594http://www.informaworld.com

A new paradigm for the identification, nomination and inscription of properties on the World Heritage List

Kishore Rao*

Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre, UNESCO, Paris, FranceTaylor and FrancisRJHS_A_462568.sgm(Received 21 July 2009; final version received 14 August 2009)10.1080/13527251003620594International Journal of Heritage Studies1352-7258 (print)/1470-3610 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis163000000April 2010KishoreRaok.rao@unesco.org

This paper reviews the current procedure for identifying and listing cultural andnatural heritage properties under UNESCO’s 1972 World Heritage Convention,analyses its shortcomings and posits a new approach. It contends that the extantprocess is contrary to the real intent of the Convention of identifying andconserving heritage of outstanding universal value through a system ofinternational cooperation and, therefore, it does not contribute effectively torealising a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List. The paperadvances a new paradigm to overcome the assessed limitations, principally byenhancing international cooperation to marshal and provide the best technicalknowledge upstream of and throughout the process of identifying, nominating andincluding properties on the World Heritage List. It envisages a progressiveinscription process with an enhanced and proactive role for the intergovernmentalWorld Heritage Committee to prioritise, at an early stage of the process, sitesmeriting inclusion on the World Heritage List, thus enabling it to effectively guidethe achievement of the Global Strategy for the World Heritage programme.

Keywords: World Heritage Convention; World Heritage; conservation;cooperation; Outstanding Universal Value

Introduction

The UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention (UNESCO 1972) is widely acknowl-edged as the foremost conservation instrument for recognising and protecting theoutstanding cultural and natural heritage of humankind for present and future genera-tions. As the only Convention in the world encompassing both natural and culturalheritage, it represents a unique and powerful link between the instruments dealingwith cultural heritage, and those addressing issues such as natural heritage conserva-tion, biological diversity, endangered and migratory species, wetlands and climatechange (Matsuura 2007). According to Schmitt (2009, p. 119) UNESCO’s WorldHeritage List serves as a reference for what is worth preserving for future generations.He goes on to state, ‘the establishment of the World Heritage regime points to theexistence of an idealistic moment in international politics in the postulation of acommon cultural and natural heritage of mankind’. Pannel (2006, p. 76) observesthat ‘[i]n creating World Heritage, the Convention also creates, in many ways, aworld without borders. As a highly organised global response to the myriad of local

*Email: k.rao@unesco.org

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

11:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

162 K. Rao

challenges facing the world’s heritage, the Convention forms part of the new architec-ture of global governance’.

Although adopted in 1972, the Convention came into force only in 1976 after rati-fication by 20 countries, and inscriptions on the World Heritage List started in 1978.Today the Convention is almost universally subscribed. The number of countries thathave ratified the Convention substantiates its popularity and success, and currentlystands at 186 of the 192 Member States of the United Nations. The World HeritageList now comprises 890 properties, including 689 cultural, 176 natural and 25 mixedproperties. At its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008) the World Heritage Committee1

considered that the success and growing complexity and diversity of the Conventionpose challenges that need to be responded to for more effective implementation of theConvention in the coming decades. Consequently, it launched a process of reflectionon the ‘Future of the World Heritage Convention’, considering its impending 40thanniversary and the fact that the World Heritage List was close to some 1000 proper-ties. Bolla (2005) questions whether this growing size of the list might not have theeffect of diminishing its value and possibly devaluing the World Heritage label, andconsiders it an important topic for further reflection. While this issue is certainly ofgenuine concern, it will not be explored further here as it is not the primary focus ofthis paper.

Submissions2 made by States Parties to the Convention for reflection on the‘Future of the World Heritage Convention’ have touched upon many of the issues thatare presenting a challenge in the implementation of the Convention. Several of thesepertain also to the issues of growing numbers and credibility of the World HeritageList; the various imbalances (geographical, types and categories) of the list; the chang-ing standards of applying the concept of Outstanding Universal Value in assessingnominations; and the growing politicisation and polarisation of discussions at WorldHeritage Committee meetings. All these concerns are pertinent to the discussions inthis paper. As Francioni (2008, p. 5) rightly observes ‘the World Heritage Conventionis not immune from certain signs of the age in which it was born’.

Clearly, as a part of the reflection process, it is time to review and rethink some ofthe strategies and procedures that have evolved over the years for implementing theConvention. Most of these procedures have become so complex that they requirespecial efforts for building the capacity of persons in the States Parties who arecharged with the implementation of the Convention. While suggestions could be madeto reform different aspects of the World Heritage process, this paper focuses only onthe identification, nomination and inscription parts, and makes some bold proposalsfor consideration.3 Bolla (2005, p. 93) cautions that ‘the various criteria and guide-lines governing the evaluation of cultural properties must not render the operation soopaque that it escapes the comprehension of cultivated audiences and is only under-stood by a small international bureaucracy’. Von Schorlemer (2008) also notes thatdue to complex inscription procedures and the lack of solid legal and documentarycapacities, developing countries often find it difficult to apply for World Heritagestatus.

Main issues

Article 7 of the 1972 World Heritage Convention reads: ‘For the purpose of thisConvention, international protection of the world cultural and natural heritage shall beunderstood to mean the establishment of a system of international co-operation and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

11:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

International Journal of Heritage Studies 163

assistance designed to support States Parties to the Convention in their efforts toconserve and identify that heritage’ (emphasis added). According to Zacharias (2008),this principle of cooperation is a formal, structural principle of the Conventionthrough which the idea of solidarity comes into play, and which makes it a coopera-tion agreement providing measures that are secondary to those present in individualStates. Titchen (1995) also rightly asserts that the main tenet of the Convention isinternational cooperation for conservation.

Various measures have been put in place to achieve the objectives of the Conven-tion, and those particularly in relation to identifying and inscribing properties on theWorld Heritage List include inter alia the following:

● There is a Global Strategy4 and 5 Strategic Objectives (UNESCO 2008a,paragraph 26) which aim at ensuring a representative, balanced and credibleWorld Heritage List;

● There is a system for each State Party to prepare an inventory of cultural andnatural heritage sites, which they may wish to eventually bring forward as nomi-nations – the Tentative List (UNESCO 2008a, Chapter II.C) process, and theharmonisation of these lists at the regional level;

● There are global gap analyses (UNESCO 2008a, paragraph 71) and thematicstudies (UNESCO 2008a, paragraph 147) carried out by the Advisory Bodies,which contribute to assisting States Parties in the process of identifying,comparing and nominating sites of Outstanding Universal Value;

● International technical and financial assistance is mobilised and made availableto those States Parties which may require it for the purpose of identifying,nominating, and conserving sites;

● An elaborate procedure is codified in the Operational Guidelines for theImplementation of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO 2008a), includinginter alia for the purpose of identifying, nominating and evaluating sites forinscription on the World Heritage List.

The principal requirement for including properties on the World Heritage List isthat nominated properties must meet the threshold of Outstanding Universal Value(UNESCO 2008a, paragraph 49), i.e. ‘significance which is so exceptional as totranscend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and futuregenerations of all humanity’. Cameron (2005) reveals that over the years, the interpre-tation of this definition in identifying World Heritage sites has moved from the ‘bestof the best’ towards ‘representative of the best’. In other words, Outstanding Univer-sal Value is no longer limited to unique sites but extends to several sites that representthe same type of property. In the view of ICOMOS (2008, p. 8), ‘Outstanding meansthat in comparison with the generally documented cultural heritage they belong to thevery best or are representative of the best’. Further that ‘Universal means that theseoutstanding values can be acknowledged as such in general and worldwide … [so] thatnot only a region or a country looks after the protection of this heritage, but thatinstead … mankind as a whole feels responsible for its protection and conservation’.On the other hand, ‘IUCN considers that it is not intended that the List should becompletely representative of the earth’s entire cultural and natural heritage as thiswould be contrary to the concept of outstanding universal value’ (IUCN 2006a).Several authors (Cameron 2005, Van der Aa 2005, Jokilehto 2006) have opined thatthe evolution of the notion of Outstanding Universal Value was a result of the Global

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

11:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

164 K. Rao

Strategy and theme studies, which served to encourage a wide range of nominationsof different typologies and from diverse cultures and regions of the world. Francioniand Lenzerini (2008, p. 408) conclude that ‘[t]his approach has the value of promotingthe role of the Convention as a tool to facilitate the meeting and exchange betweendifferent cultural experiences and a sharing of the understanding of natural heritagebetween different peoples of the world’.

Despite international cooperation being at the heart of the Convention, some partsof the World Heritage nomination and inscription process do not truly reflect the‘system of international cooperation and assistance’, as envisaged under the Conven-tion. For example, the Advisory Bodies5 do not directly and actively participate in theState Party process of preparing or revising tentative lists, in reviewing them, and inthe regional harmonisation of the tentative lists. The tentative list is a planning toolthat documents the location, description and values of an area, and compares it withother similar properties. It is, thus, essentially an inventory of those properties that theState Party intends to submit for nomination in the following years (UNESCO 2008a).The pretext of ‘conflict of interest’ is often raised for the Advisory Bodies not tosubstantively participate in this process, as they feel that this may somehow influencethe process of evaluating nominations, for which they are directly and solelyresponsible. However, the development of a credible tentative list through a rigorousscientific process is a fundamental prerequisite to the whole nomination process andhence would truly require a system of ‘international cooperation and assistance’,including by the Advisory Bodies.

Likewise, the nomination process is also beset by such a ‘hands off’ approach bythe Advisory Bodies, under the pretext of conflict of interest. This is one of thegreatest ironies, because the Advisory Bodies are meant to be repositories of the besttechnical knowledge and expertise on the subject, yet are unable to share it freely withthe States Parties for ensuring the success of the nominations! The ‘conflict ofinterest’ argument also runs contrary to the spirit of the Convention, as it is in ourcollective interest to identify and protect heritage of Outstanding Universal Value andhence we all have to work together for this. Even Article 6 of the Convention states‘that such heritage constitutes a world heritage for whose protection it is the duty ofthe international community as a whole to co-operate’.

Unfortunately, as a result of this situation, the States Parties have to rely ontechnical and financial assistance that they can mobilise, either from their own sourcesor from others, in order to prepare the nominations. Frequently these nominations,mainly from less developed countries that do not have adequate technical and finan-cial capacity, and who may also be under-represented or non-represented on theWorld Heritage List, are judged as being ‘incomplete’ (UNESCO 2008a, paragraph132) or fail to get inscribed following their evaluation by the Advisory Bodies. Astudy by Van der Aa (2005, p. 25 citing Charleton 2000) showed that the nominationprocess required much energy and resources from the country proposing a site, andthat there are countries that ‘deserve the recognition and assistance that listing wouldbring, but [they] often lack the means to inventory, nominate, and protect their sites’.Furthermore, the World Heritage Committee has put in place a definite timetable(UNESCO 2008a, Chapter III.J) for the nomination, evaluation and inscription ofnominated sites. This stringent timetable also has the effect of ensuring that once acertain step in the nomination process is missed, for whatever reason (date, complete-ness, quality and so forth), the earliest next opportunity for the nomination to beconsidered again would be at least one year away.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

11:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

International Journal of Heritage Studies 165

In other words, the current practice, contrary to the intent of the World HeritageConvention, does not fully establish a ‘system of international cooperation and assis-tance’ to support States Parties in their efforts to identify and conserve their culturaland natural heritage of Outstanding Universal Value. Batisse and Bolla (2005), whohave documented the history of the development of the Convention, recall that itspurpose was to stimulate international cooperation in order to identify and develop themost outstanding natural and cultural sites in the world for the benefit of the presentand future generations. It is the premise of this paper that as foreseen by the WorldHeritage Convention, the identification, nomination, inscription and conservation ofoutstanding heritage is in the interest of the global community, and that it thereforerequires a collective global effort throughout and at all stages of this entire processon an ongoing basis.

Analysis

A few examples might serve to better illustrate the present state of affairs. So far, anamount of US$5,274,708 (360 requests)6 has been provided to States Parties from theWorld Heritage Fund as ‘Preparatory Assistance’ to help them inter alia to preparenominations. Of this, an amount of US$3,223,699 (61%) was dedicated specificallyto the preparation of nomination files (186 requests). Only 62 requests (for a totalamount of US$976,142) led to an inscription or an extension of an existing propertyapproved by the World Heritage Committee, i.e. only 18.5% of the total preparatoryassistance had a positive result. Even if only the 186 requests for preparation of nomi-nations are considered, the success percentage goes up marginally to 30%. It is reason-able to expect that a similar picture would be revealed if all the other resources(national, bilateral, multilateral, non-government) devoted to the preparation ofnominations were to be analysed. The reasons for this failure could be varied: thenominations may not have addressed the identified gap or priority; they may havebeen considered as incomplete; they may not have met the desired standards in termsof the justification, the comparative analysis, or the conditions of integrity and authen-ticity; or simply because certain supporting material was not included.

Such a situation (waste of time, effort and money) could perhaps have beenavoided if there was a system of cooperation and collaboration in place to constantlymentor, support and accompany the States Parties throughout the process of preparingand submitting the nominations, and in ensuring that the sites being nominated meetall the requirements of the Operational Guidelines. Under the World HeritageConvention, international assistance from the World Heritage Fund is foreseen forproperties that are included or potentially suitable for inclusion in the World HeritageList or in the list of World Heritage in Danger (Article 13, paragraph 1). This provi-sion in Article 13 is further complemented by paragraph 2, which states that suchassistance may also be concerned with the identification of cultural or natural property‘when preliminary investigations have shown that further inquiries would bejustified’. This suggests that there needs to be an upstream process for ensuring thesuitability of sites that are proposed to be taken forward for inscription by supportingthe preparation of nominations.

A case in point, which brings out this contradiction between the intent of theConvention and the process put in place to achieve it, is the case of the TransborderRainforest Heritage of Borneo (Indonesia and Malaysia). There is no doubt that thisarea merits inclusion on the World Heritage List on the basis of its globally significant

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

11:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

166 K. Rao

biodiversity heritage values (Rautner et al. 2005), and even IUCN’s evaluation reportof the nomination acknowledges this fact (IUCN 2006b). However, the evaluationalso pointed out that the nominated site did not meet the conditions of integrity and onthat basis the World Heritage Committee deferred the inscription in 2006 (UNESCO2008a, paragraph 160). The deferral of a nomination by the Committee entails itssubstantive revision or in-depth assessment or study and resubmission when complete,to follow the same cycle of evaluation as for a new nomination. Since then the nomi-nation of this site has not been resubmitted by the States Parties concerned, nor isthere any indication that they would do so in the near future. Not only has precioustime been lost (the actual time has to be counted from the start of preparation of thenomination), but also the two States Parties have been left to fend for themselves intrying to meet the various requirements, and in the meantime the situation on theground may not have improved. It is also informally learnt that the property may neveragain be proposed for inscription, which, if true, would mean an impoverishment ofthe World Heritage List and a failure of the Convention in meeting its objective ofprotecting heritage of Outstanding Universal Value.

Another recent example that highlights this problem comes from the 33rdSession of the World Heritage Committee in 2009, where one of the nominationsconsidered was that of the ‘Causses and the Cevennes’ from France. The nominationwas also previously considered by the Committee at its 30th Session in 2006 but was‘referred back’ (UNESCO 2008a, paragraph 159) to the State Party for additionalinformation. Unlike the deferral procedure, a referred nomination does not entailsignificant revision but the provision of additional information only and can beresubmitted to the following Committee session for consideration. From the evalua-tion report of the revised nomination submitted by the State Party (ICOMOS 2009)and the discussions that took place at the Committee meeting in 2009, it was appar-ent that the relevant World Heritage inscription criteria (UNESCO 2008a, paragraph77) could be justified and that the physical manifestations of agropastoralism in thenominated area could be an outstanding example. However, as the boundaries couldnot be clearly justified in terms of the attributes related to agropastoralism, the nomi-nation was once again ‘referred back to the State Party’. This example again begs thequestion that if a particular heritage is worthy of inscription on the World HeritageList, should it not become our common endeavour to work towards that end, ratherthan use a process that leads to delivering an unpredictable verdict at the end of along-drawn-out process?

Yet another case in point pertains to the use of the mechanism of ‘referral’ and‘deferral’ even in the case of proposals for ‘minor modifications’ (UNESCO 2008a,paragraphs 163, 164) to existing World Heritage properties. Such minor modifica-tions, particularly when they relate to adding area to either the property or to its bufferzone, are proposed with a view to enhancing its integrity, protection or managementand should be welcomed. Therefore, it should be in our common interest to advise andhelp the State Party concerned on how to best achieve these objectives. As a matter offact, the Advisory Bodies should be charged with providing guidance and advice onhow to most appropriately modify the boundaries, and this should be viewed as aconservation-related process, rather than one related to the evaluation of a nomination.Accordingly, the resources available for this purpose should be used for providing‘technical assistance’ and not for ‘evaluation’. At the end of the process, and if theAdvisory Bodies are satisfied, the World Heritage Committee should be called uponto take note of and formally approve the revised boundaries.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

11:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

International Journal of Heritage Studies 167

Although various provisions of the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO 2008a,paragraph 168) for consulting and seeking additional information are used by theStates Parties and Advisory Bodies before and during the 18-month period of prepar-ing, submitting and evaluating nominations, it largely remains a secretive process,with the final results being announced with great fanfare and yielding many surprises.The main reason for this is that the Advisory Bodies (the major repositories oftechnical knowledge and expertise on the subject) are unable to freely counsel theStates Parties on a continuing basis, particularly during the 18-month period, to ensurethat the various requirements are met, as they are then responsible for subsequentlyevaluating the submitted nominations and making recommendations to the WorldHeritage Committee. As pointed out previously, they consider that this would amountto a conflict of interest. Roders and Van Oers (2009) conclude that while the processfor assessing Outstanding Universal Value is clearly defined, this is not the case forthe assessment practices undertaken at different stages by different parties, or for theprocedure to involve other stakeholders in this assessment.

Admittedly, this kind of a process was not foreseen by the Convention, which interalia under Article 11 calls upon the World Heritage Committee only to define thecriteria, and coordinate studies and research for establishing the World Heritage List.Indeed, over the years, the process has become so complex that it is moving awayfrom the principal objective of the Convention, which is the ‘establishment of asystem of international cooperation and assistance designed to support States Partiesto the Convention in their efforts to conserve and identify that heritage’. Perhaps it isopportune to consider what could be done to remedy this situation.

A new paradigm

The establishment of a ‘system of international cooperation and assistance’ requiresthe global community to accompany those States Parties that need such help through-out the entire World Heritage process, not only for getting sites of OutstandingUniversal Value inscribed on the World Heritage List, but also for ensuring theirsustained conservation. As stated above, the focus of this paper is only on the inscrip-tion part of the overall World Heritage process and it is only this aspect that it willexplore further. The new paradigm proposed here envisages a progressive or stag-gered inscription process, accompanied by a system of international cooperation andits conclusion or completion through the formal inclusion of sites on the WorldHeritage List, after ensuring that all desired conditions have been met. This papercontends that the issues and analysis presented above are major constraints in achiev-ing the objectives of the Global Strategy, and proposes a modified approach in thefollowing paragraphs.

The World Heritage Committee has progressively put in place a series of measureswithin the Operational Guidelines (UNESCO 2008a, Chapter II.B), in order topromote the Global Strategy for establishing a representative, balanced and credibleWorld Heritage List. These initially consisted of limiting to a maximum of 30 newsites the number of nominations examined yearly by the Committee, with a furtherlimit of not more than one site per State per year, except for those States with no sitesinscribed on the World Heritage List, which could submit two or three nominations.Additionally, a priority system was established to select sites if the total number ofnominations exceeded 30. Nevertheless, as these were not sufficient to achieve thedesired results, paragraph 61 was the latest addition to the Operational Guidelines on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

11:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

168 K. Rao

an experimental basis to be reviewed in 2011. These measures include raising to 45the number of nominations to be reviewed annually, with not more than two nomina-tions per State Party, and a system of prioritisation if the nominations exceeded 45.

A global study carried out by ICOMOS from 1987 to 1993 revealed that the WorldHeritage List lacked balance in the types of properties and geographical areas, andconcluded that the reasons for this imbalance are both structural, relating to thenomination process, and qualitative, relating to the manner in which properties areidentified, assessed and evaluated (UNESCO 2008b). In spite of the measuresadopted, the reality is that concerns continue to be expressed on the variousimbalances in the World Heritage List, which is a clear pointer to the fact that theestablished system is not adequately responding to these concerns. In this context,Bandarin (2007, p. 193) also observes that ‘most of the measures adopted so far havenot proved successful’ and questions whether a ‘priority list’, based on agreed scien-tific criteria, should be used in future to guide and accelerate the rebalancing process.He also questions whether a system can be envisaged that gives sites in these listspriority for International Assistance or other forms of support from the WorldHeritage Committee and the States Parties. This paper attempts to answer these crucialquestions.

The earlier generation of properties were inscribed on the World Heritage List inthe absence of corresponding thematic studies prepared by the Advisory Bodies, as thetradition of such theme studies did not exist at that time for aiding the process ofglobal comparative analysis. Consequently, properties belonging to a particular themeor the same type and category, which are subsequently evaluated for inscription, arecompared to the formerly inscribed ones and may emerge in a better light. Van der Aa(2005) remarks ‘[s]takeholders of nominated sites often refer to already inscribedsites, by arguing that their site is qualitatively at least as good as a listed site’. This hasled to a situation where there are not only multiple similar properties, but also proper-ties that might not measure up to the test of Outstanding Universal Value if they wereto be evaluated today. Therefore, it is imperative and urgent for the Advisory Bodiesto update regularly their gap analyses to identify future priorities for the WorldHeritage List, and to complete global thematic studies as soon as possible. If required,the World Heritage Committee should also seriously consider a delay in inscribingthose properties for which the corresponding global thematic studies have not yet beencompleted. Accordingly, this part of the inscription process should be accorded theimportance and attention that it deserves.

On the basis of these global thematic studies and gap analyses, the next crucial stepin the process should be to assist States Parties in identifying properties that truly meetthe threshold of Outstanding Universal Value. Consequently, the preparation and/orrevision of credible national tentative lists and their regional harmonisation should notbe left to the States Parties alone, but become a collaborative effort. This wouldrequire even the Advisory Bodies (together with all others who may possess the requi-site technical knowledge and expertise, including local communities and civil society)to play active roles, especially for ensuring that properties of truly OutstandingUniversal Value are added to the tentative lists, as well as meet global gap priorities.These tentative lists should be seen as the foundational step of the nomination processand the basis for the World Heritage Committee to make the preliminary decision ontaking selected properties within them forward to the next step. In this context,Jokilehto (2006, p. 10) notes that ‘[t]he principal challenges … are related to thestrategies to adopt for collaboration in the development and revision of the Tentative

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

11:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

International Journal of Heritage Studies 169

Lists, considering that … [they] are the basis for introducing any change in the repre-sentivity of the World Heritage List’.

Accordingly, the intergovernmental World Heritage Committee should be calledupon to play a more proactive and decisive role, upstream of the nomination process,by identifying priorities for nominations from these rigorously prepared tentative lists.In other words, the Committee would be invited to make a preliminary selection oftentative list properties, which could be taken to the next stage of preparing detailednomination dossiers. In making this selection, the World Heritage Committee wouldhave a direct role in ensuring a proper and effective implementation of the GlobalStrategy for a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List. Non-repre-sented or under-represented regions, themes and categories can be deliberately prior-itised by the Committee in order to rectify the various imbalances. Although theremay not be any guarantees at this stage that a particular property, shortlisted throughsuch a process, would be inscribed on the World Heritage List within a definite time-frame, the process of inscription could be considered as having been initiated andongoing after this preliminary endorsement by the World Heritage Committee.

The World Heritage Committee can simultaneously make targeted allocation ofinternational assistance7 from the World Heritage Fund to support the nominationprocess on the basis of the prioritised tentative list properties. At the same time, thedonor countries, World Heritage Centre and various partners can also develop extra-budgetary projects to support the State Parties concerned in ensuring compliance withthe various requirements and regulations of a complete nomination. There are alsointeresting opportunities for providing such assistance, such as through twinningarrangements between an inscribed property and one that is working towards inscrip-tion. Frey and Pamini (2009) propose an innovative scheme of ‘World HeritageCulture Certificates’ that could be traded, as a means of mobilising resources to helpsites. Support should also be provided, where necessary, to enable the developmentand establishment of appropriate legal and institutional frameworks, managementplans and systems, as well as for addressing integrity issues, and creating cooperationmechanisms in the case of transboundary and transnational properties.

Similarly, the best possible technical assistance should be mobilised from varioussources, including direct guidance by the Advisory Bodies, during the preparation ofthe detailed nomination dossiers. This would ensure that all the requirements are metand regulations complied with, and that the nominated sites are truly of OutstandingUniversal Value, meet the conditions of integrity and authenticity, and are effectivelyprotected and managed. Such technical assistance would invariably have to be deliv-ered at the country and property levels. The nomination dossiers should be consideredcomplete only after all these essential requirements have been fully met, and if not,the process of cooperation and assistance should continue and be taken to its logicalconclusion. A system of providing periodic progress reports to the Committee couldalso be envisaged, although the impact of such a process on the workload of theCommittee would have to be carefully assessed. Scovazzi (2008, p. 173) considersthat ‘previous consultations between the World Heritage Committee and the Stateconcerned may provide useful explanations about the reasons why the Committee isnot convinced that the nominated property presents Outstanding Universal Value.Consultation may perhaps transform a likely refusal to a deferral’. On the basis of theexamination of these completed nomination dossiers the World Heritage Committeeshould be invited to adopt the decision to formally inscribe the properties on theWorld Heritage List.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

11:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

170 K. Rao

Under the Convention, it is the World Heritage Committee that has the authorityto include properties in the World Heritage List. Article 11 specifically states that theCommittee shall establish the World Heritage List on the basis of the inventories(tentative lists) submitted by the States Parties. However, in actual practice the Advi-sory Bodies have been bearing much of this burden because of the undue reliance ona complex and secretive evaluation process, during which there is no opportunity forany guidance by the Committee or technical inputs from other sources. This processunfortunately suffers from the various limitations and weaknesses which have beendetailed previously, and is not appropriate, as it was not intended to be so under theConvention. Zacharias (2008, p. 1853) notes that ‘[t]he participation of the AdvisoryBodies at evaluation stage is not explicitly stipulated in the World Heritage Conven-tion … This indicates that the Committee is allowed to enlist the support of expertsfor the purposes of assessment whether a property forms part of the World Heritage’.The proposed new approach will not only enable the best scientific and technicalknowledge to be accessed from diverse sources, but also allow the World HeritageCommittee to regularly review, monitor, guide and take decisions at different stagesof the inscription process. Thus, the Committee will be in a position to appropriatelysteer the direction of the representivity and balance of the World Heritage List.

Lastly, it needs to be emphasised and reiterated that the new approach being advo-cated throughout this paper is not in any way intended to weaken the rigour, credibil-ity or standards for including properties on the World Heritage List. Nor does it putforward a system to facilitate indiscriminate inscriptions. To the contrary, it is hopedthat it would make the whole process more transparent and collaborative by enablingdiverse partners and interests to oversee, participate and contribute to it throughout itsvarious phases. Thus, the opportunities for maintaining the very highest standards andcredibility of the World Heritage List would only be greatly enhanced.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the process of including properties on the World Heritage Listhas developed in a manner that has only served to establish a growing divergencebetween those that are responsible for identifying and conserving the outstandingcultural and natural heritage of humankind, and those that have been assigned theresponsibility of evaluating and passing a judgement on its values. It is high time thatthis schism is bridged and the system mended by truly reverting to the letter and spiritof the Convention, which is ‘the establishment of a system of international co-opera-tion and assistance designed to support States Parties to the Convention in their effortsto conserve and identify that heritage’ (UNESCO 1972, Article 7, p. 4). It is hopedthat this paper has contributed in some way to advancing a reflection in that directionand ultimately, bringing about appropriate changes to the Operational Guidelines forthe Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

Undeniably, if and when the progressive nomination system proposed in this paperis adopted, there will be a loss of some excitement in the World Heritage process, asthe annual announcement of final results of nominations may not come as a greatsurprise. However, this minor loss would be far outweighed by the benefit of havingproperties inscribed that have been identified by marshalling the best scientific knowl-edge, and transparently evaluated through a system of international cooperation andassistance as being truly of Outstanding Universal Value, and contributing to theachievement of the objectives of the World Heritage Global Strategy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

11:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

International Journal of Heritage Studies 171

Cameron (2009, p. 10) provides a fitting conclusion to this discussion:

The World Heritage Convention is perhaps the most widely recognised and effectiveconservation instrument in the world. Since its adoption in 1972, the Convention hasmobilised a global movement for the protection of the shared heritage of humanity. It hasencouraged intercultural dialogue and unprecedented levels of international co-opera-tion. As we reflect on ways to improve it, we should keep in mind our stewardshipresponsibility for the Convention itself.

AcknowledgementsThis paper reflects the personal views of the author and not necessarily those of UNESCO orits World Heritage Centre.

Notes1. The World Heritage Committee comprises 21 States Parties to the World Heritage Conven-

tion who are elected by the General Assembly of States Parties. The Committee is respon-sible for the implementation of the Convention.

2. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, http://whc.unesco.org/en/futureoftheconvention/.3. The Director General of UNESCO in his address to the 33rd session of the World Heritage

Committee (Seville, 2009) called for ‘bold steps to ensure the better and appropriategeographical and thematic balance called for by the Global Strategy’. Available from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ulis/cgi-bin/ulis.pl?database=ged&set=4A72E3B4_2_323&look=dgnew&sc1=1&sc2=1&nl=1&ll=1&title=2009&hist=0&scroll=1.

4. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/.5. ICOMOS – International Council of Monument and Sites; ICCROM – International Centre

for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property; IUCN – Interna-tional Union for the Conservation of Nature.

6. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, http://whc.unesco.org/en/intassistance/action=stats.7. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, http://whc.unesco.org/en/intassistance.

Notes on contributorKishore Rao is Deputy Director of the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO, a position he hasheld since 2005. From 1999 to 2004, he was with IUCN – The International Union for Conser-vation of Nature and Natural Resources – and from 1976, he worked for the Government ofIndia at federal and provincial levels.

ReferencesBandarin, F., 2007. Looking ahead: the World Heritage Convention in the twenty-first

century. In: S. Labadi (director). World heritage – Challenges for the millennium. Paris:UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 192–196.

Batisse, M. and Bolla, G., 2005. The invention of ‘world heritage’. History Papers. UNESCOaction as seen by protagonists and witnesses. Paper 2. Paris: Association of FormerUNESCO Staff Members (AFUS).

Bolla, G., 2005. Episodes of a painstaking gestation. In: M. Batisse and G. Bolla, eds.The invention of ‘world heritage’. History Papers. UNESCO action as seen by protagonistsand witnesses. Paper 2. Paris: Association of Former UNESCO Staff Members (AFUS).

Cameron, C., 2005. Evolution of the application of ‘outstanding universal value’ for culturaland natural heritage. Paper presented at the special expert meeting of the World HeritageConvention: The concept of Outstanding Universal Value. Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan,Russian Federation. WHC-05/29.COM/INF.9B.

Cameron, C., 2009. Context of the World Heritage Convention: key decisions and emergingconcepts. Keynote speech delivered at the workshop on ‘Reflections on the Future of theWorld Heritage Convention, UNESCO, 25–27 February 2009.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

11:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

013

172 K. Rao

Francioni, F., 2008. The 1972 World Heritage Convention: an introduction. In: F. Francioni(with the assistance of F. Lenzerini), ed. The 1972 World Heritage Convention. Acommentary. New York: Oxford University Press, 3–7.

Francioni, F. and Lenzerini, F. 2008. The future of the World Heritage Convention: problemsand prospects. In: F. Francioni (with the assistance of F. Lenzerini), ed. The 1972 WorldHeritage Convention. A commentary. New York: Oxford University Press, 401–410.

Frey, B.S. and Pamini, P. 2009. Making world heritage truly global: the culture certificationscheme. Working Paper No. 2009–13. Basel: Centre for Research in Economics, Manage-ment and the Arts.

ICOMOS, 2008. The World Heritage List: what is OUV? Paris: International Secretariat ofICOMOS.

ICOMOS, 2009. Evaluations of cultural properties. Prepared for the World HeritageCommittee 33rd session: WHC-09/33.COM/INF.8B1.Add. Paris: International Council onMonuments and Sites.

IUCN, 2006a. The World Heritage List: guidance and future priorities for identifying naturalheritage of potential outstanding universal value. Switzerland: IUCN-The WorldConservation Union.

IUCN, 2006b. IUCN evaluation of nominations of natural and mixed properties to the WorldHeritage List. Report to the World Heritage Committee Thirtieth session: WHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2. Gland: IUCN-The World Conservation Union.

Jokilehto, J., 2006. World heritage: defining the Outstanding Universal Value. City and Time2 (2), 1. Available online: http://www.ct.ceci-br.org [Accessed 20 July 2009].

Matsuura, K., 2007. Foreword. In: S. Labadi, ed. World heritage – challenges for theMillennium. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 7.

Pannel, S., 2006. Reconciling nature and culture in a global context? Lessons from the WorldHeritage List. Research Report. Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical RainforestEcology and Management. Townsville: James Cook University.

Rautner, M., Hardiono, M. and Alfred, R.J., 2005. Borneo: Treasure Island at risk. Frankfurtam Main: WWF Germany.

Roders, A.P. and Van Oers, R., 2009. Modeling the Outstanding Universal Value assessmentprocess. Unpublished paper.

Schmitt, T.M., 2009. Global cultural governance: decision-making concerning World Heritagebetween politics and science. ERDKUNDE, 63 (2), 103–121.

Scovazzi, T., 2008. Articles 8–11. World Heritage Committee and World Heritage List. In: F.Francioni (with the assistance of F. Lenzerini), ed. The 1972 World Heritage Convention.A commentary. New York: Oxford University Press, 147–174.

Titchen, S.M. 1995. On the construction of outstanding universal value: UNESCO’s World Heri-tage Convention (Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and NaturalHeritage, 1972) and the identification and assessment of cultural places for the inclusion inthe World Heritage List. Unpublished thesis, The Australian National University.

UNESCO, 1972. Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and naturalheritage. Adopted by the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scien-tific and Cultural Organisation at its Seventeenth Session, Paris, 16 November.

UNESCO, 2008a. Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World HeritageConvention. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

UNESCO, 2008b. World heritage information kit. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.Van der Aa, B.J.M. 2005. Preserving the heritage of humanity? Obtaining the World Heritage

status and the impacts of listing. Unpublished thesis, University of Groningen.Von Schorlemer, S., 2008. Compliance with the UNESCO World Heritage Convention:

reflections on the Elbe Valley and the Dresden Waldschlosschen Bridge. GermanYearbook of International Law, 51, 321–390.

Zacharias, D., 2008. The UNESCO regime for the protection of World Heritage as prototypeof an autonomy-gaining international institution. German Law Journal, 9 (11), 1833–1864.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mos

kow

Sta

te U

niv

Bib

liote

] at

11:

09 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

013