Evolving of UNESCO World Heritage Program

As a consultant with UNESCO for a long time, William S. Logan (2001) admitted that UNESCO and its associated bodies have imposed so-called 'world's best practice' on state parties in the cultural heritage field by improving international practice (such as the

31

promulgation of international documents like the World Heritage Convention, and laying down common conservation methodologies and management plan requirements), promoting particular sets of heritage values and conservation practices, and establishing common management practices in World Heritage sites (see also Askew 2010:27; Labadi 2013). However, Logan (2001) is unconvinced that the homogenisation of universal standards and management practises have mainly derived from international authorities, and he believes that the policies and criteria of the World Heritage Program have progressively assimilated new concepts in order to incorporate wider communities' concerns. Askew (2010) notes that the UNESCO World Heritage Centre has been widening the number of listed sites and the diversity of heritage types in order to make the list more representatives of its member states from different cultural backgrounds since the late1980s. The adoption of the 1994 'Global Strategy' has widened the diversity of the world heritage categories, including cultural landscapes, industrial sites, modern architecture, and inhabited settlements, in order to accommodate diverse and complex sites from different cultural backgrounds. The key concept of 'outstanding universal value' has been evolved 'from listing "the best of the best" ("iconic" or unique sites) to listing "representative of the best", the latter being a reflection of the necessity for comparison due to the surge in the number of nominated sites of similar character' (Askew 2010:30; see also Cameron 2005).

The promulgation of 'The Nara Document on Authenticity' in 1994, issued under the names of both UNESCO and ICOMOS, outlines how variant conservation practices should be interpreted, and underscores the importance of the cultural context for heritage. Since then, the term authenticity has been adopted as a central issue by UNESCO. World Heritage properties should meet the criteria of authenticity based on the Operational Guidelines that:

‘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 nomination criteria proposed) are truthfully and credibly expressed through a variety of attributes.’ (II.E 82 Operational Guidelines 2011).

These attributes include ‘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 other internal and external factors.’ (II.E 82 Operational Guidelines) (See also Annex.13 Operational Guidelines 2011). Starn (2002) points out that a concept of 'authenticity' that focuses on preserving the material and inherent

32

value of heritage was driven by anxiety about the destruction of cityscapes during the Second World War, as well as rapid urban development since the 1960s. In recent decades, as Winter and Daly (2012:8) have noted, there have been dramatic physical changes in Asia since the 1990s, which disconnect people from their sense of place. The United Nations (2008:21) notes that nearly 80% (111 of 140) of new big cities emerging in the world after the 1990s are in Asia. For instance, as Campanella (2008:286) indicates, 'China has built more housing in the last twenty-five years than any nation in history'. Cities in Southeast and East Asia such as Shanghai, Beijing, Tokyo, Singapore, Bangalore and Bangkok can hardly be recognised when compared to photographs taken in the 1970s, and in some cases even the 1990s. Because of the anxiety over losing authenticity and tradition, international authorities adopted the concept of authenticity to protect the physically innate value of heritage from rapid changes in cities.

There are two critiques of the implications of authenticity. From a practical perspective, the concept of 'authenticity' has been used as a condition for world heritage nomination and management for more than two decades, yet many scholars maintain that it is still very hard to test authenticity, particularly in South-Asian nations (see Taylor 2009; Winter and Daly 2012). As Labadi (2010) argues, it is not compulsory to test authenticity associated with intangible meaning in specific cultural contexts for world heritage listing: ‘the four degrees of authenticity relating to the 'original' - material, workmanship, design and setting of the site - have been used predominantly by States Parties in the nomination dossiers’ (Labadi 2010:76). From an academic perspective, Smith (2006) argues that authenticity is still a part of the AHD that was formulated by experts, and essentially rests on an exaggerated appreciation of materiality. According to research from Chinese scholars such as Zhou et al. (2006), Zhang (2007), Ruan and Li (2008) and Zhang (2010), efforts have been made to translate the Western meaning of 'authenticity' into the Chinese context, and how to accurately include authenticity in Chinese heritage practices. Therefore, the 'official' concept of authenticity still serves within the Western conservation ethic, and is conducted by experts. As Graham (2001: 63) argues:

'[A]uthenticity tends to a monologic unquestioning discourse concurrent with the idea of the "nation", it arises also out of contexts in which the nation becomes an active arbiter between the past and a "people" ... [it] combines the prioritisation of "origins" with the "pathos of incessant change".'

33

The discussions of authenticity in heritage and tourism debates are much more complex than the focus on its physical manifestation suggests, however, and is being increasingly linked to people's emotions and feelings (see for instance, Wang 1999; Smith 2006, 2012; Zhu 2012; Smith and Campbell 2015). I will discuss this issue further below.

Scholars such as Logan (2001) and Askew (2010) note that the adoption of the 2003

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICHC) was another example where UNESCO accommodated alternative heritage forms. UNESCO states that the ICHC moved beyond the 1972 World Heritage Convention, which focused on tangible properties and requirements to represent OUV and its relevant authenticity, to a wider discipline relating to cultural identity, diversity and continuity (UNESCO 2003). The ICHC defined intangible heritage as:

…practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development (Article 1, UNESCO 2003).

The ICHC has been considered to be a counterpoint to the World Heritage Convention, and its promulgation as deriving from both academic criticism of the Eurocentric understanding of heritage (see Byrne 1991; Cleere 2001; Sullivan 2004; Labadi 2007; among others), but also the practices from from a range of non-Western countries (see Aikawa 2004). Scholars such as Aikawa (2009), Blake (2009), Skounti (2009) and Hafstein (2009) acknowledge that it was a long and complex process for State Parties to draft the ICHC, which brought in non- Western understandings and practises of heritage. As Aikawa (2009) notes, non-Western countries, particularly Japan, have made great efforts to promote the inclusion of the concept of intangible heritage in the UNESCO World Heritage Program, and finally intervened to

34

influence the development of the ICHC. However, Smith and Waterton (2009) argue that Western countries such as Australia, Canada, the UK, Switzerland and the USA, who abstained from voting for the ratification of ICHC did not understand the significance of the Convention (see also Kurin 2004). From a practical perspective, UNESCO has created an Intangible Heritage list that is separate from the World Heritage list. Therefore, scholars such as Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (2004), Smith and Waterton (2009) and Hafstein (2009) question the implications of the ICHC in practice within nations of different cultural backgrounds. From a theoretical perspective, however, they acknowledge that the creation of ICHC was a milestone meaning making performance against the object-related 'criteria' of WHC. However, the values and meaning of intangible or tangible heritage were predefined by powerful international or national authorities such as UNESCO. Therefore, Kreps (2009:204) worried that the ICHC 'can lead to the standardization and homogenization of practices that are inherently varied, and governed by specific cultural protocol'.

As Smith (2006:111) argued the World Heritage Program is a cultural practice that was legitimised by UNESCO with its own recognition and 'validates certain cultural expressions as "heritage"'. Therefore, Smith and Akagawa (2009:4) are concerned with how successful UNESCO's definition of ICHC is in challenging the Eurocentric understanding of heritage, which has been determined by 'how that is done and by whom, and under what framing criteria and philosophies'. As Smith (2006, 2011, 2012) argues, one of the consequences of the AHD is that it legitimates 'experts', who have the ability or authority to define what is heritage, and is also reliant on institutionalised international and national cultural agencies, points also made by Byrne (1991) and Harvey (2001). Smith (2006) points out the AHD is a self-referential discourse that identifies 'heritage' as old, monumental and grand sites, buildings, monuments and places with aesthetic, scientific values which must be protected for future generations. The AHD defines a set of boundaries of heritage practices that privileges

'monumentality and grand scale, innate artefact/site significance tied to time depth, scientific/aesthetic expert judgement, social consensus and nation building', however, at the same time it obscures or devalues the multi-vocality of sub-national cultural and social experiences and heritage understandings (Smith 2006:11). The subordinate groups, such as local communities and tourists, do not have a chance to speak, and they are unlikely to escape from peripheral status in processes which privilege power and knowledge and are dominated by experts and politicians.

35

Therefore, it is necessary to explore the process of how the dominant authorities translate the concept of world heritage and apply it to subordinate groups, as well as to document the reactions of those marginalised people and communities to dominant discourses, such as the AHD and the 'harmony discourse'. My thesis will address these two issues within a Chinese context. Before I develop my arguments in the rest of my thesis, in the next section, I will discuss other forms of understanding of heritage, arising from discourses of subordinate groups rather than the 'official' meaning based on the AHD and the 'harmony discourse'.