Continuity: a fundamental yet overlooked concept in World Heritage policy and practice

ABSTRACT

If a World Heritage property does not continue to have Outstanding Universal Value, it ceases to be World Heritage. ‘Continuity’ is a fundamental concept, yet the Operational Guidelines (OG) do not recognize its great practical utility. This article argues that this concept should be operationalized to help resolve significant issues and challenges facing the World Heritage system. In particular, replacing authenticity with continuity in the OG can: 1. bridge the culture/nature divide to maintain interlinkages, indissoluble bonds, and interactions between people and properties; 2. facilitate the application of the people-centred living heritage approach and historic urban landscape approach to exceed the limits of the materials-based approach imposed by the Venice Charter; and 3. enhance the role of communities in World Heritage management to better recognize and respect their needs and rights. In conclusion, the author outlines a way forward, which is to operationalize continuity, not only as a qualifying condition for future nominations of cultural and/or natural properties, but also as a strategic objective (6^th C) to help achieve the goals identified in the 2012–2022 Strategic Action Plan. The original ideas expressed in this article contribute to advancing intellectual discussions about contemporary World Heritage issues and to overcoming these issues.

KEYWORDS:

• World heritage
• continuity
• authenticity
• qualifying condition
• strategic objective

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. The word ‘people’ is used interchangeably with ‘communities’ in this article. It means: ‘all forms of non-State actors’ ranging from ‘groupings of peoples as indigenous, traditional and/or local peoples [..] presented as, inter alia, community groups, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, private enterprise and/or local authorities. The defining characteristic [..] is [..] they all possess a direct connection [..] to individual sites and often they have a connection that has endured over time [..]’ (UNESCO-WHC 2007, 2).

2. The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Properties (ICCROM) is an Advisory Body, but, unlike ICOMOS and IUCN, it does not evaluate nominations.

3. Compatibility implies that there is no or little adverse impact on the significance of a property. Its potential as a qualifying condition is an important avenue to explore in future research. This concept is fundamental to decision-making concerning ‘change’ in heritage properties, whether pre-inscription or post-inscription. For instance, all States Parties must inform the World Heritage Committee of their intention to undertake restoration or new construction projects (thus, change) that may affect OUV so that the Committee ‘may assist in seeking appropriate solutions’ to ensure that OUV is ‘fully preserved’ (UNESCO-WHC 2017, paragraph 172). Appropriate solutions imply that change should be compatible or, said differently, ‘harmoniously integrated’, which is the expression used in the Recommendation on the HUL (UNESCO 2011, Items 12, 22). The concept of compatibility also appears in other Recommendations and Charters as shown by Khalaf (2016). Moreover, because change will inevitably affect the physical and visual integrity of heritage properties, whether a little or a lot, the examination of the relationship between compatibility and integrity is an important avenue to explore in future research as well.

4. It is worth mentioning that the Ouro Preto meeting in 2012 proposed a 6^th C for ‘Cooperation’ (Castellanos 2013, 47), but the proposal was rejected because international cooperation is already an explicit objective of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO 1972, Article 7; see also Articles 4, 6.1, 13.7; see also Rao 2013, 83). International cooperation is also highlighted in the 2012–2022 Strategic Action Plan (UNESCO-WHC 2011, 2). On the other hand, continuity should become a strategic objective (6^th C) for reasons listed in this article, or, at the very least, Conservation (2^nd C) should be clarified as ‘management of Continuity and Compatible Change’.

Additional information

Funding

My research is independent and self-funded.

Notes on contributors

Roha W. Khalaf

Roha W. Khalaf holds a Ph.D. in Aménagement (Environmental Design) from Université de Montréal, a Master of Architecture, a Bachelor of Architectural Studies with a minor in French Literature and a Certificate in Teaching Skills from Carleton University, Canada. She was a Visiting Scholar of the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research at the University of Cambridge. Her experience includes architectural and urban design, cultural heritage conservation and policy-making. Among her research interests are the topics of continuity, compatibility, World Heritage, reconstruction, sustainable development goals, and climate change.