National Governments' Understanding of World Heritage

I interviewed two directors from the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (GO001) and the State Administration of Cultural Heritage (GO002), who are in charge of the World Heritage application and management issues, on 2th _{December and 4}th _December,

68

2013, respectively. Interviews were also conducted with an official (GO003) from the China National Commission for UNESCO (under supervision of The Ministry of Education) who is responsible for communicating with the UNESCO World Heritage Centre on 9th _December,

2013. One of the key questions I asked was 'How do you personally understand World Heritage?

GO001: Well, I agree with UNESCO's definition based on the World Heritage Convention and the Operational Guidelines...The Official definition is not static, which changed with the development of the World Heritage program. However, from my view, there are too many sites on the World Heritage list, particularly cultural sites. I doubt whether heritage values which mainly focus on OUV are suitable for the new development of heritage in third world countries. This is because local communities have such different and in-depth views on heritage values. The OUV represents the European ideology, and the majority of World Heritage sites are in European territory. Even a small old church can be accounted as a World Heritage site. From my perspective, UNESCO should reconsider the standards for OUV and combine similar types of World Heritage sites. I think the Southern China Karst and China Danxia 23have provided good examples for this.

GO002: Actually, the definition and classification of World Heritage by UNESCO have been developed since the start of the World Heritage program. I think the original 1972 World Heritage Convention was based on the Venice Charter. Since then, UNESCO has modified the Operational Guidelines in order to embrace the new concepts of World Heritage, which include Cultural Landscape, Cultural Route, Industrial Heritage, Historical Urban Landscape and so forth. As far as I am concerned, the World Heritage Convention reflects the recognition of World Heritage concepts in the 1970s, while the original concepts have been improved by modifying the Operational Guideline over the last forty years. However, the classification of the World Heritage program is different to the Chinese national system.

GO003: We have used the definition from UNESCO in China.

23_{The World Heritage Property of South China Karst is a serial property inscribed on 2007 (extended in 2014) that includes}

seven karst clusters in four Provinces（UNESCO,2014). The World Heritage Property of South China Karst is a serial property inscribed on 2010 that includes seven karst clusters in four Provinces（UNESCO, 2010).

69

The three government officials' understanding of heritage is underpinned by UNESCO's definition. Their responses were not surprising, because the concept of heritage was rarely mentioned in the Chinese protection and management systems until China signed up to the

World Heritage Convention in 1985 (Yan 2012). With the Chinese government’s acceptance

of the concept and policies from UNESCO, problems emerged when those policies were implemented in domestic practices. GO001 realises that the imbalance of the World Heritage List is derived from a Eurocentric based World Heritage Program. The imbalance of the World Heritage List, where more than half of the World Heritage sites are from the European region, has already been well documented by Western scholars (see for example, Cleere 2001; Meskell 2002; Smith 2006; Labadi and Long 2010). Waterton (2010) has further illustrated Smith’s (2006) argument that UNESCO's Eurocentric understanding of heritage was derived from Western intellectuals and professionals such as archaeologists, historians and architects who have the authority to define and interpret what heritage is. These intellectuals are not only placed at the centre of understanding and defining heritage meanings, they also dominate the management process in order to safeguard heritage for future generations. Smith (2006) has demonstrated that experts from international authorities dominated heritage narratives and the decision making process, which is a main characteristic of the practices associated with the 'authorised heritage discourse'.

GO002 points out that the heritage definition used by UNESCO has changed and evolved with new concepts and policies since 1972 - as Smith (2006) argues the narratives of the AHD are neither static nor uncontested. Although the international AHD is constantly evolving, intellectuals from international authorities still dominate the legitimising and decision making process of the World Heritage Program. Meskell et al (2015) argue that the power relations of decision making of World Heritage listing has been shifted to State Parties, particularly to some non-Western countries, in recent years. Smith (2006) and Waterton (2010) argue that the AHD has been seen as a 'common sense' of heritage practices and enshrined in the OUV criteria. The changes in the international AHD have caused problems within the Chinese heritage management system. GO001illustrated this;

GO001: UNESCO has limited the number of new nominations since 2000. You know, China is a big county. UNESCO may think the Cairns Decision is just a simple policy change. However, we already developed a systematic system based on the World Heritage Convention and the old version of the Operational Guidelines.

70

The international policy changes caused heritage application and management problems, and we had to readjust our management systems and policies based on the new international policy.

Before the Cairns Decision, UNESCO did not limit the numbers of sites nominated by each country. The provincial governments of China had the right to provide their suggestions of local heritage sites for World Heritage nomination. The MHURD and the SACH would make final decisions to nominate more than two qualified sites, based on the Chinese national heritage management systems. For example, there were four cultural properties inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2000, which were the Ancient Villages in Southern Anhui – Xidi and Hongcun, Mount Qincheng and the Dujiangyan Irrigation System, Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties and Longmen Grottoes (UNESCO 2000d). However, the diffusion of international policies and regulations such as the Cairns Decision has changed the power relations within the original national management practises. The MHURD has gradually lost influence, which has been assumed by the SACH, because of the promulgation of the new category Cultural Landscape and the implication of the Cairns Decision. The MHURD used to be in charge of the majority of cultural landscape management, based on the Chinese original national heritage management systems, which have different categories and standards than the UNESCO models. In order to introduce the UNESCO model, the central government of China reshaped the power relations in the management system so that the MHURD took charge of natural heritage and the SACH was placed in charge of cultural heritage. However, based on UNESCO's model, cultural landscape belongs to cultural heritage for WHL. Therefore, the changes in power relations have caused conflict within the Chinese management system (Han 2006). Base on this conflict, GO001 and GO002 considered that:

GO001: The management and application issues in cultural heritage sites have some overlap at national level. The implication of the Cairns Decision and the new catalogue Cultural Landscape has caused new conflict with national governments. Take West Lake as an example, West Lake was defined as a'风景名胜区Scenic and Historic Interest Areas with the MHURD in charge of planning and management issues at the national level. Therefore, based on our old rules, the MHURD should in charge of the West Lake WH application. Indeed, the MHURD was in charge of West Lake when it was inscribed on the Tentative List as a combination site. With

71

the newly announced Cultural Landscape category by UNESCO, the MHURD and local government realised that West Lake should apply for Cultural Landscape status. In this sense, the SACH has argued that Cultural Landscape is a category under cultural heritage. It is their responsibility for West Lake World Heritage Listing issues. However, Cultural Landscape is not a pure cultural heritage, according to Chinese policy and relevant law, West Lake is a Scenic and Historic Interest Areas. Our department (the MHURD) have already been in charge of management issues for more than twenty years based on'风景名胜区条例 Regulations of Scenic and Historic Interest Areas'. The SACH has no relevant law and regulation at national level, although they encourage local governments to promulgate a local regulation

called '西 湖 文 化 景 观 保 护 条 例 West Lake Cultural Landscape Protection Regulations'. They also do not have the experience to manage a Scenic and Historic Interest Area. Therefore, Regulations of Scenic and Historic Interest Areas is still a key management law at West Lake after World Heritage listing.

GO002: Take West Lake as an example. After World Heritage listing, we have listed West Lake on the 7th 全国重点文物保护单位 National Cultural Relics in 2013, which means connection to the international convention and national law. The implementation of 西 湖 文 化 景 观 保 护 条 例 West Lake Cultural Landscape Protection Regulations provide a local regulation for World Heritage management. In terms of the relationship between the SACH and the MHURD, we have based it on different law and regulations of heritage issues. In terms of World Heritage application, the MHURD is responsible for World Natural Heritage sites whereas the SACH takes charge of World Cultural Heritage. The SACH is also in charge of Cultural Landscape sites application because it belongs to the cultural heritage category. The MHURD has argued that most Cultural Landscape sites are 风景名胜

区Scenic and Historic Interest Areas and based on风景名胜区条例Regulations of Scenic and Historic Interest Areas at the national level. However, you know the evaluation of Cultural Landscape sites are carried out by ICOMOS in consultation with IUCN, while the SACH is more familiar with the system of ICOMOS. Therefore, we have taken charge of the recent Cultural Landscape sites application. The dissonance and conflict was derived from the promulgation of the Cairns Decision. Since then, the MHURD lost power over cultural properties’ nomination on the WHL, but they still

72

have responsibility for the management of cultural properties selected from the Scenic and Historic Interest Areas. The other reason that the MHURD complained was because inscribing a natural property is much more difficult than a cultural site. This is evidenced by there being only 197 natural properties on the World Heritage list compared to 779 cultural sites (UNESCO 2016). Many scholars made strong complaints about the implementation of the Cairns Decision (see Li 2005; Li et al 2006; Li 2007b). Li Xiankui, the Director of the Department of Foreign Affairs of MHURD, in his article ‘Breaking Through “Keynes” [Cairns], Promoting the World Heritage to Develop in Harmony’, states that the limitation of the Cairns Decision is that it is:

obviously unfavourable to China as a big legacy county [sic: country]. We prepared a list of more than 100 items of declaring world legacy, and if only one quota is allowed to declare in one year, it will take 100 years to realize the full declaration.’ (Li 2005:27)

He pointed out that one of the significant tasks for holding the 28th Session of the World Heritage Committee in Suzhou was to break through the ‘one country, one quota’ limit (Li 2005:27). His article elaborated on the difficult process that the Chinese experts are now engaged in as they fight to amend the Cairns Decision. Finally, he indicated that the World Heritage Committee had adopted the ‘Suzhou Decision’ and ‘Suzhou Declaration’, which means that the World Heritage Committee will consider requests for the inscription of 45 nominations each year instead of the 30 new ones set by the Cairns Decision (China.org.cn 2004). The Committee also agreed to revise the Cairns Decision and published Global Strategy: Evaluation of the Cairns-Suzhou Decision that allowed each State Party to put forward two sites, with at least one being a natural heritage site (UNESCO 2007).

On the other hand, the SACH actively accepted the Cairns Decision, and a series of actions and policies have been developed since that date. In 2000, they developed the Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China (ICOMOS China 2002), which has been seen as the Chinese version of the Burra Charter. In December, 2005 the State Council issued the

State Council Circular Concerning the Strengthening of Cultural Heritage Conservation

(2009[2005]). It represents a milestone of Chinese heritage development as China officially used the term 'cultural heritage' to replace 'cultural relics' (Shan 2008; Yan 2012). Since then, government authorities and research institutes, as well as official government documents, have been using the term 'cultural heritage' to replace the old term 'cultural relics'. In addition,

73

the State Council Circular Concerning the Strengthening of Cultural Heritage Conservation

proclaimed that the second Saturday of June was designated as China’s Cultural Heritage Day. In 2017, the State Council agreed to the request of the MHURD to adjust the ‘Cultural Heritage Day’, and re-brand it as the ‘Cultural and Natural Heritage Day’ from 2017 (State Council 2016). As Yan (2012:96) indicated, the inscription of China’s Cultural Heritage Day 'has drawn remarkable public recognition and appreciation as well as bear witness to the development and solidification of China’s cultural preservation in its “cultural heritage phase.”' In addition, when the international authorities issued new documents relating to new types of cultural properties, the SACH and ICOMOS China have correspondingly developed Chinese domestic versions (see Table 4.1).

Table 4.1: Comparison of the original international documents with the Chinese version Name of Documents (original) Name of Documents (Chinese version) Comments

The Burra Charter (1999) The Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China (2000,2004) The Convention for the

Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003)

State Council Circular Concerning the Strengthening of Cultural Heritage Conservation (launched in 2005)

Law on the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2011)

Intangible Cultural Heritage

Nizhny Tagil Charter for the Industrial Heritage (launched in 2003)

Wuxi Recommendation on Protecting Industrial Heritage during Fast Economic Development (launched in 2006)

Industrial Heritage ICOMOS Charter on the Built

Vernacular Heritage (launched in 1999)

Circular on Strengthening the Protection of Vernacular Architecture (launched in 2007)

Vernacular Heritage one-year Montreal Action Plan

focusing on 20th Century Heritage (launched in 2001)

Circular on Strengthening the Protection of 20th Century Heritage ((launched in 2008) Routes as Part of Our Cultural

Heritage (launched in 1994) Charter on Cultural Routes (launched in 2008)

Wuxi Recommendations on the Protection of Cultural Routes Heritage (launched in 2009)

Cultural Routes

The actions and policies listed in Table 1 demonstrate that the Chinese governments were uncritically accepting the international authorised heritage discourse, and even mirroring the international documents. Waterton (2010) criticises the China Principles because, despite having a unique history and different ideology to Western nations, the China Principles were not created based on its own national context within Chinese culture and understandings of cultural heritage. Qian (2007) argues that the promulgation of the China Principles reflects the Chinese government's endeavour to develop their own national terminology drawing on international heritage discourse. The development of domestic documents and the inscription of China Natural and Cultural Heritage Day demonstrates that China actively endeavours to

74

participate in the UNESCO World Heritage Program. It aims to play a leading role in heritage preservation and narratives in Asia, and even the world. It also aims to reframe 'itself to be an integral part of the world culture'(Yan 2012:101). In this sense, the Chinese government has developed a preoccupation with accumulating numbers and diversity of World Heritage sites. From the Chinese government’s perspective, the increasing numbers of Chinese World Heritage sites, with a diversity types of cultural properties, can reflect China’s abundant and varied cultural status (Yan 2012; Li 2007b). As GO002 indicates:

GO002: ...In terms of the WH application, the application of the Cairns Decision has been seen as a turning point in China. As you mentioned Xidi and Hongcun, in my view, these two villages represent Chinese traditional philosophy such as '风水 Fengshui' and '聚族而居 where people live together as a big family'. But, they only represent these Chinese traditional philosophy regionally, while there are other villages can also complement this type of heritage. However, because of the number of nominations to be submitted by each State Party being limited to two, we prefer to consider applying for new types of sites at the national level.

As GO002 noted, the changed international policies had the disadvantage of revealing some of the Chinese values of the sites. He considered that the increasing numbers of Chinese World Heritage sites with diverse types of cultural properties can reflect China’s abundance and variety of cultural statuses. His response also reflects that there is a pragmatic working within the policy frameworks offered by UNESCO. GO002 also describes the World Heritage listing process of West Lake Cultural Landscape of Hangzhou:

GO002: Actually, you cannot imagine the pressures and challenges we faced. West Lake of Hangzhou is the first Cultural Landscape type of World Heritage in China. West Lake decided to apply as a Cultural Landscape at the very early stages of the World Heritage application process. There are three reasons we supported this application. Firstly, we are confident that West Lake has OUV at an international level. Secondly, West Lake represents Chinese traditional culture merged with its outstanding urban landscape architectures. Thirdly, the local government has put a lot of effort into inscribing West Lake, which includes developing 西湖综合保护工

程 the West Lake Protection and Management Project. In addition, Hangzhou citizens also had enthusiasm for the World Heritage application. You know, the reputation of West Lake is great in China. We worried that our understanding of

75

West Lake cannot be recognised by Western experts and scholars. Local governments have done lots of research in order to translate the meaning of West Lake into OUV that Western experts could understand. It is a very hard process. For instance, one of the Ten Poetically Named Scenic Places'断桥残雪 Lingering Snow on Broken Bridge' has three folder meanings that were very hard to explain to Western experts. As for what kind of beauty or what Chinese ideology of the sites, they may not understand, unless they grow up in the Chinese southern cultural background. Nevertheless, UNESCO understood that West Lake represents the Chinese understanding of landscape and perspectives of beauty.

GO002 briefly reviewed the nomination process of West Lake, which reflects how important being able to translate Chinese understandings of West Lake into terms understandable within the international AHD of 'OUV' was to the nomination. Whether the true meaning of West Lake has been displayed or not in the listing is, as GO002 illustrates, actually unnecessary. UNESCO has tried to build an objective assessment system based on international experts who, with scientific knowledge and understanding, are held to be capable of making objective judgements on World Heritage listing. Ironically, my interview with GO002, who