World Heritage policy on reconstruction: from exceptional case to conservation treatment

Abstract

International heritage doctrine and the Operational Guidelines (OG) for the Implementation of the World Heritage (WH) Convention discourage the reconstruction of cultural heritage. Only ‘exceptional circumstances’ justify this practice, namely armed conflicts and natural disasters. The UNESCO WH Committee recently expressed its support for the reconstruction of damaged WH properties in view of such circumstances and requested the development of new guidance to address this timely issue (Decisions: 39 COM 7 and 40 COM 7). Guidelines will be prepared and provided to the Committee accordingly (Decision: 41 COM 7). We can therefore foresee revisions and additions to Paragraph 86, which is currently the only guideline in the OG, deemed ‘inadequate’ by the Committee. This research paper brings into focus the status of reconstruction in WH policy formulation and takes a normative position. Drawing on document analysis and the most up-to-date studies, I argue that its status should formally shift from exceptional case ruled out a priori to conservation treatment ruled in. I encourage a fruitful international exchange of ideas among a broad interdisciplinary readership to contribute to policy-making. Readers who dispute my position, no less than those who support it, may come to see reconstruction in a different light.

Keywords:

• World Heritage
• cultural heritage
• reconstruction
• conservation treatment
• exceptional circumstances

Acknowledgment

I thank the Cambridge University Library in the U.K. for having provided access to the references.

Notes

1. Cultural heritage in this paper refers to immovable and tangible properties such as buildings and sites. Movable objects (e.g. art works, antiques) are not discussed here.

2. Article 15 of the Venice Charter states with regard to archaeological sites that reconstruction should ‘be ruled out “a priori”’ (ICOMOS 1964), thus excluding it as a valid means for the conservation of cultural heritage. This statement applies to historic buildings and districts since the Charter adopts an overall restrictive attitude to replacements (Petzet 2004, 19) as per the dictum of Adolphe Napoléon Didron: ‘for ancient monuments, it is better to consolidate than repair, better to repair than to restore, better to restore than to reconstruct’ (Didron 1839, 47; see also Cameron 2016, 214, 215). Ruskin (1890) subsequently adhered to this philosophy and took a strong stance against reconstruction, which is embedded in Article 9 of the Venice Charter in particular. This Charter is the cornerstone of the OG.

3. OUV was defined in the 2005 version of the OG – 33 years after the creation of the 1972 WH Convention. To this day, it means ‘cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity’ (UNESCO-WHC 2017a, Paragraph 49). Experts have noted that this definition ‘is not particularly helpful’ (Cameron 2009, 128).

4. International Council on Monuments and Sites. This Advisory Body evaluates nominations of cultural (and mixed) properties and makes recommendations to the WH Committee with regard to inscription on the WH List.

5. International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property.

6. Preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration, for example, are formally recognized as acceptable conservation in international heritage doctrine. They are called ‘conservation treatments’ in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada (Parks Canada 2010). This terminology echoes processes and practices, which is why I prefer it to simply ‘conservation’. Other authors prefer it as well (e.g. Kalman 2017). This Canadian policy explicitly rules out reconstruction: ‘Reconstruction, or reconstitution of a disappeared historic place, is not considered conservation and is therefore not addressed in this document’ (Parks Canada 2010, 15).

7. It is called the Nara ‘Document’ not ‘Declaration’ on Authenticity for a reason: ‘consensus was not fully reached’ (Am 2009, 144).

8. ‘Negative heritage’ is also called ‘difficult heritage’, ‘heritage that hurts’, ‘places of pain and shame’, ‘uncomfortable heritage’, and ‘dark heritage’ among other terminologies in the literature (see Giblin 2014, 509 for a list of sources).

9. Some authors add, ‘Unfortunately, buildings, like all cultural achievements, are doomed to decay. Whether caused by neglect, war or catastrophes, architecture “carries within itself the traces of its future destruction, the future perfect of its ruins”’ (Mager 2015, 2, quoting Jacques Derrida).

10. It is worth briefly mentioning that CyArk, an international non-profit organization that uses 3D technologies to document heritage sites, has created ‘a digital archive that will ensure the longevity and accessibility of this data’ which will be shared ‘through a variety of platforms to provide virtual access to the sites for education and interpretation’ (Lee 2016, 145) and,  potentially, for virtual and physical reconstruction. CyArk recently launched a joint initiative with ICOMOS (Project Anqa) to document high-risk sites in 3D in Syria and Iraq (Lee 2016, 146).

11. Credibility is the first of the ‘5Cs’ (strategic objectives) of the WH Convention, followed by Conservation, Capacity-Building, Communication, and Communities. (Note: Communities are not formally involved within the statutory bodies).

12. Deferral means that the nomination requires ‘more in depth assessment or study, or a substantial revision by the State Party’ after which it can be resubmitted should the State Party decide to do so ‘in any subsequent year’ (UNESCO-WHC 2017a, Paragraph 160).

13. Referral means that the nomination requires some ‘additional information’ and ‘may be resubmitted to the following Committee session for examination’, but if it ‘is not presented to the Committee within three years of the original Committee decision’ it ‘will be considered as a new nomination when it is resubmitted for examination’ (UNESCO-WHC 2017a, Paragraph 159).

14. According to the World Bank, 65 million people are reportedly displaced including 21 million refugees (World Bank 2017, ix).