![Sample our Sports and Leisure journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5949/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Sports-Leisure.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The introduction of cultural landscapes within the framework of the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention is widely hailed as a landmark achievement. While it is often described as a boon for the recognition of non-European cultural heritage, we show that this is largely a myth. In the drawn-out gestation process, European countries’ listing ambitions were crucial, and topics such as Indigenous sites were brought up by the Global North while a concern for, as well as representatives from, the Global South were largely absent. Introducing the category in 1992 significantly broadened the types of acceptable sites, but European countries continued to dominate just like for other cultural heritage, filling the World Heritage List with vineyard landscapes rather than the sacred mountains that were first inscribed. European states also eagerly used extra nomination slots for cultural landscapes while non-European List leaders prioritised natural heritage and the conventional cultural heritage they had not yet exhausted instead. Moreover, non-European cultural landscapes have struggled to gain expert approval, as is demonstrated for African nominations. The mere introduction of a new heritage category thus does not suffice to alter a dynamic more than ever determined by national self-interests.
Acknowledgments
Brumann’s initial research was funded by a Heisenberg Fellowship of the German Research Foundation (DFG). Gfeller’s initial research was funded by a Swiss National Science Foundation Ambizione grant. We are grateful to Fanny Badache, Emilie Dairon, Leah R. Kimber, and Lucile Maertens for organising the ‘Researching the United Nations and Other International Organizations’ conference in Geneva 2018 in which we could discuss an earlier version. We wish to thank three anonymous reviewers and Brumann’s colleagues in the Department ‘Resilience and Transformation in Eurasia’, in particular Lale Yalçın-Heckmann, for their valuable comments.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. Cf. https://www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/9_cultural_landscapes-paysages_culturels.aspx, https://www.bunka.go.jp/english/policy/cultural_properties/introduction/landscape, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/culturallandscapes/index.htm, https://www.coe.int/en/web/landscape/home.
2. WHC-94/CONF.1/2, p. 3 (https://whc.unesco.org/archive/1994/whc-94-conf001-2e.pdf).
3. WHC-97/CONF.208/INF.4, p. 3 (http://whc.unesco.org/document/55).
5. CC-77/CONF.001/8 Rev. (https://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide77b.pdf).
6. SC/84/CONF.004/9, p. 7 (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/1984/sc-84-conf004-9e.pdf).
7. UNESCO Archives, CLT WHC EUR 56, Alain Megret (Direction de la protection de la nature, Ministère de l’environnement), Reconnaissance dans le cadre de la convention du Patrimoine Mondial de la notion de paysages ruraux et culturels, 29 April 1992.
8. SC/84/CONF.004/9, p. 8 (https://whc.unesco.org/document/889).
9. UNESCO Archives, Central Registry, 3rd series, 502.7 A 101 WHC Part V, John Foster, IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, The identification and evaluation of World Heritage mixed properties: discussion paper, September 1985.
11. UNESCO Archives, Central Registry, 3rd series, 502.7 A 101 WHC Part V, Adrian Philips (director of the Countryside Commission for England and Wales and member of the IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas), letter to James Thorsell (executive officer of the IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas), 16 August 1985.
12. SC/85/CONF.008/3, p. 7 (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/1985/sc-85-conf008-3e.pdf).
13. CC-86/CONF.001/11, p. 11 (https://whc.unesco.org/document/897).
14. UNESCO Archives, Central Registry, 3rd series, 502.7 A 101 WHC Part V, Michel Parent, Note introductive: réunion du 11 octobre relative à l’élaboration de critères relatifs aux biens mixtes naturels et culturels du patrimoine mondial.
15. CC-86/CONF.001/11, p. 11 (https://whc.unesco.org/document/897).
16. SC-87/CONF.004/11, pp. 9–10 (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/1987/sc-87-conf004-11e.pdf).
17. US National Park Service, Office of International Affairs Archives [NPS/OIA Archives], unboxed, folder: WHC Committee Canada 1990, US Department of State to US Embassy in Paris, telegram drafted by Richard Cook (NPS), August 1990.
18. SC/89/CONF.004/12, p. 11 (https://whc.unesco.org/document/912).
19. CLT-90/CONF.004/13, p. 8 (https://whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom90.htm).
20. David Jacques’s private papers (DJPP), ICOMOS Landscapes Working Group [newsletter], 12 June 1991.
21. DJPP, ICOMOS Landscapes Working Group [newsletter], November 1991.
22. SC-91/CONF. 002/2, p. 3 (http://whc.unesco.org/document/616).
23. DJPP, ICOMOS Landscapes Working Group [newsletter], November 1991.
24. SC-91/CONF.002/15, p. 25 (https://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/15COM).
25. Alain Megret, Reconnaissance dans le cadre de la convention du Patrimoine Mondial de la notion de paysages ruraux et culturels.
26. ICOMOS Archives, Courrier, 1992, Courrier envoyé/expédié, World Heritage Convention Review, ICOMOS notes prepared for the Paris meeting, 27–30 October 1992, enclosed with fax letter from Herb Stovel to Henry Cleere, 19 October 1992.
27. Herb Stovel Papers (HSP), Carleton University Archives, boxes Stov-Cleere 1/2/3; ICOMOS Archives, Courrier, 1992, Courrier envoyé/expédié and Courrier reçu.
28. HSP, box 4, folder: ICOMOS, Herb Stovel responses/letters, 1990, Herb Stovel to Roberto di Stefano, 12 September 1990.
29. UNESCO Archives, CLT WHC EUR 56, ICOMOS and IUCN, memorandum, 9 July 1992.
30. UNESCO Archives, CLT WHC EUR 56, Herb Stovel, ICOMOS meeting to assist the World Heritage Committee respond appropriately to nominations of cultural landscapes, 8 July 1992.
31. ICOMOS Archives, Courrier, 1992, Courrier reçu, Herb Stovel, Notes re Invitees for Cultural Landscapes Meeting, enclosed with fax cover from Herb Stovel to Leo van Nispen, 14 August 1992.
32. ICOMOS Archives, Courrier, 1992, Courrier envoyé, Henry Cleere, fax letter to Herb Stovel, 10 September 1992.
33. ICOMOS Archives, Courrier, 1992, Courrier envoyé, Henry Cleere, fax letters to Herb Stovel, 1 and 10 September 1992.
34. Herb Stovel, Notes re Invitees for Cultural Landscapes Meeting.
36. Mechtild Rössler, interview with Gfeller, 5 March 2012.
37. DJPP, ICOMOS Landscapes Working Group [newsletter], June 1991 and March 1992.
38. David Jacques, replies to questionnaire by Gfeller, 1 May 2012; Susan Buggey, interview with Gfeller, 10 May 2012.
39. DJPP, ICOMOS Landscapes Working Group [newsletter], 12 June 1991; March 1992; August 1992.
40. Susan Buggey, interview with Gfeller, 10 May 2012.
41. SC/88/CONF.001/13, p. 6 (https://whc.unesco.org/document/2124).
42. UNESCO Archives, Central Registry, 3rd series, 502.7 A 101 WHC Part VII, Jane Robertson (UNESCO Secretariat), SC/ECO/5865/8.17, Report of my mission to Florence 10–11 May 1989.
44. Details on all mentioned properties and the respective documents and decisions can be viewed on the World Heritage List website (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list).
45. WHC-92/CONF.002/12, p. 45 (https://whc.unesco.org/archive/1992/whc-92-conf002-12e.pdf); WHC-93/CONF.002/2bis, p. 8 (https://whc.unesco.org/document/922).
46. Ibid., p. 8; WHC-93/CONF.002/14, p. 39 (https://whc.unesco.org/document/672); WHC-94/CONF.003/13, p. 9 (https://whc.unesco.org/document/739).
49. Wachau (Austria); Burgundy; Champagne; Saint-Emilion (France); Tokaj (Hungary); Piedmont; Langhe-Roero and Monferrato; Conegliano and Valdobbiadene (Italy); Alto Douro; Pico Island (Portugal); Lavaux (Switzerland); and, with wine being somewhat less central in their OUV justifications, Loire Valley (France); Upper Middle Rhine Valley (Germany); and Portovenere/Cinque Terre (Italy).
50. Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine and its Cultural Landscape (Japan).
51. Pyrénées – Mont Perdu (Spain and France), Madriu-Perafita-Claror Valley (Andorra), The Causses and the Cévennes (France), Hortobágy National Park/the Puszta (Hungary), and The English Lake District (United Kingdom).
52. 20 properties inscribed since 1993 are expressly characterised as a ‘cultural landscape’ or (in one case) ‘human-made landscape’ in the mandatory ‘Statement of Outstanding Universal Value’ but, for unclear reasons, do not feature on the cultural landscape webpage of the World Heritage Centre. These too, however, split evenly between European and non-European countries. All our numbers exclude Dresden Elbe Valley (Germany), a cultural landscape inscribed in 2004 and removed from the List in 2009 because of a controversial bridge project.
53. While this included two Indigenous landscapes in Greenland nominated by Denmark, a Polynesian cultural landscape nominated by France, and an Anatolian cultural landscape nominated by Turkey, all other properties were located in geographical Europe.
54. Of 40 European cultural landscape nominations, 15 (38%) were recommended for inscription and 22 (55%) were actually listed. For the 45 non-European cultural landscape nominations, the respective figures were 16 and 29 (i.e. 36 and 64%).Nominations are summarised in the table on the first pages of document 8B for each of these Committee sessions and possible supplementary documents, such as 8B.Add, to which this table refers (documents of individual Committee sessions can be accessed from http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions). Because of inscription in a different category or for unclear reasons, not all the listed 51 properties feature on the Centre’s cultural landscape webpage. Numbers here and in include all nomination instances of properties identified as cultural landscapes by either the nominating country or ICOMOS (not necessarily by both). Nominations struck or marked as ‘withdrawn’ in the tables are included, as this occurred in response to negative ICOMOS feedback and not because nominating states independently changed their mind. Mere extensions of already listed sites are excluded, as is also Ani Archaeological Site (Turkey), given that in the final submission in 2016, in response to ICOMOS’s interim feedback, it was framed as an archaeological site rather than a cultural landscape.
55. The natural properties include 2 non-European mixed properties that were also nominated as cultural landscapes and 1 European natural property nominated together with a cultural landscape, but these three cases would have passed also under the pre-2014 rule. Our numbers exclude several additional cases of double or even triple nominations that did not require inclusion of a natural site or cultural landscape because they concerned contributions to transboundary nominations (covered by the quota of a different participating country) or mere extensions of already listed properties (exempt from the count since the 2016 session; we also disregard the one extension of a natural property prior to 2016).
56. It also encouraged bending the rules: Germany nominated Hedeby and the Danevirke as a cultural landscape in 2018, together with an ordinary cultural property. ICOMOS found it to be an archaeological site, not a cultural landscape, but nevertheless recommended inscription, and the Committee listed something that based on the rules could not have been nominated.
57. For unclear reasons, the Northern African countries (included in the count for Arab countries in World Heritage statistics) have no cultural landscapes on the List and did not nominate any in the 2010s.
58. Sessions documents INF.8B1 and any additional documents to which these refer (see note 53).
59. WHC-15/39.COM/INF.8B1, pp. 34–40 (https://whc.unesco.org/document/135654).
60. WHC-11/35.COM/INF.8B1.Add, pp. 2–15 (https://whc.unesco.org/document/106677).
61. Ibid, p. 9.
62. Erzgebirge/Krušnohoří (Germany/Czech Republic) and the Prosecco vineyards of Conegliano and Valdobbiadene (Italy).
63. WHC-15/39.COM/INF.8B1, pp. 149–160 (https://whc.unesco.org/document/135654).
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Christoph Brumann
Christoph Brumann is Head of Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle, and Honorary Professor of Anthropology at the University of Halle-Wittenberg. He obtained his doctoral (1997) and habilitation (2005) degrees at the University of Cologne and also taught at the universities of Düsseldorf and Tübingen. In addition to UNESCO World Heritage, he has published on urban anthropology, cultural heritage, the economy of Buddhism, the anthropological concept of culture, utopian communes, gift exchange, and Japanese society and culture. His most recent books include The Best We Share: Nation, Culture and World-Making in the UNESCO World Heritage Arena (2021), Tradition, Democracy and the Townscape of Kyoto: Claiming a Right to the Past (2012), and the co-edited Monks, Money, and Morality: The Balancing Act of Contemporary Buddhism (2021) and World Heritage on the Ground: Ethnographic Perspectives (2016). He is also the author of ‘Heritage Agnosticism: A Third Path for the Study of Cultural Heritage’ (Social Anthropology 22, 2014). He is a member of the Academia Europaea.
Aurélie Élisa Gfeller
Aurélie Élisa Gfeller is Head of Programme and Project Management Services in the Research Office of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFL) in Lausanne, where she manages Swiss and international fellowship and research funding programmes as well as large collaborative research projects. She received her PhD degree from Princeton University (2008) and was a research fellow at the European University Institute in Florence and the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. In addition to global heritage, she has published on the history of Franco-American relations and European integration and is the author of Building a European Identity: France, the United States, and the Oil Shock, 1973–1974 (2012) and of ‘The Authenticity of Heritage: Global Norm-Making at the Crossroads of Cultures’ (American Historical Review 122, 2017).