Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century 9819921228, 9789819921225

Citation preview

Creativity, Heritage and the City 5

Christina Cameron Editor

Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century

Creativity, Heritage and the City Volume 5

Editor-in-Chief Francesco Bandarin, IUAV Venezia, Venezia, Venezia, Italy Editorial Board Ana Pereira Roders, Architectural Engineering and Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands Edmond Préteceille, Sciences Po, Paris, Paris, France Hans Thomsen, University of Zurich, Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland Klaus Kunzmann, School of Planning, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany Kuanghan LI, School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University, Beijing, Beijing, China Lily Kong, Department of Geography, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore Marisol García Cabeza, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Minoru Tsukagoshi, Osaka Museum of Natural History, Osaka, Japan Shahid Vawda, Centre for African Studies, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa Vera Regina Tangari, Departamento de Projeto de Arquitetura, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Xavier Greffe, University Paris I Sorbonne, Paris, Paris, France Yonca Erkan, School of Graduate Studies, Kadir Has University, Istanbul, Türkiye

Cities are faced with various problems, including terrorism, energy challenges, and environmental issues, as well as inter-urban competition brought about by expanding globalization forces. What is required is to gather theoretical insights from various scientific areas, not only social science– humanities but also natural science, and connect them to the practical insights already gained through numerous efforts to deal with these issues on the ground. In this way, paradigms for urban creativity can be developed and we can start to accrue dependable practice and theoretically based intelligence that can be used for improved policymaking. The keywords for this book series are “urban creativity”, “(cultural) heritage”, and “social development”. Developing cultural and natural resources, including heritage, so as to take the lead in evaluating, implementing, and suggesting urban or regional designs that harmonize ecology, society, and people, and to further develop urban and regional culture is essential. There is a particular focus in this book series on fostering individuals who can design, manage, and direct models, technologies, and tools for promoting interfaces between such actors as policymakers, urban planners, engineers, and residents. The above-stated goals can be implemented through cooperation with international research communities and networks, international organizations, and natural history institutions, academies of science, and research institutes.

Christina Cameron Editor

Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century

Editor Christina Cameron Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage University of Montréal Ottawa, ON, Canada

ISSN 2366-4584 ISSN 2366-4592 (electronic) Creativity, Heritage and the City ISBN 978-981-99-2122-5 ISBN 978-981-99-2123-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

This book is dedicated to the hundreds of participants at the fourteen Montreal Round Tables who struggled through snow, sleet and hail to reach the University of Montreal campus each winter to reimagine heritage conservation in the twenty-first century.

Preface

This book presents a portrait of heritage conservation theory and practice in the first two decades of the twenty-first century. It looks back over the first fifty years of the World Heritage Convention to capture the most important themes driving change in the heritage sector. Inspiration comes from the rich debates of fourteen Montreal Round Tables hosted by the Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage at the University of Montreal from 2006 to 2018. The diversity of themes—cultural landscapes, reconstructions, sites of memory, interdisciplinarity, historic urban landscapes and heritage tourism—draws attention to the rapid evolution in the field and underscores the need for innovation. The book brings together the voices of different stakeholders in the heritage conservation process, ranging from global scholars, active participants in World Heritage processes, government officials, experts and practitioners as well as research students and young professionals. Each chapter, written by authors who attended various sessions of the Montreal Round Tables, explores difficult conservation issues encountered by the World Heritage Committee and the cultural heritage sector generally in the first two decades of the twenty-first century. This book offers a much-needed connection between theory and practice by linking analysis of conservation issues with practical solutions at field-level heritage places. One of its strengths lies in the exceptional diversity of perspectives engaged in the discussion and the interconnections among different generations. Written in an accessible style, it contains a broad range of research, issues and practical examples that will interest a diverse audience of academics, researchers, conservation specialists and community leaders wishing to engage in conservation. This book presents an important portrait of heritage conservation across the globe at a significant period of evolution. It identifies new ideas and approaches that need to be addressed as we look to the future. Despite its easy style of writing, it maintains scientific rigor as it explores original ideas and innovative contributions to the heritage discourse influenced by developments within the World Heritage system. During the final preparation of this book, the global pandemic known as COVID19 spread around the world, transforming our lives in ways that are not yet clear. While the pandemic inadvertently creates a distinct end and a new beginning for the themes, Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century captures vii

viii

Preface

a pre-pandemic universe. Some chapters have added postscripts to describe recent developments related to a particular theme. As we venture into the world again in this post-pandemic era, what lies ahead will unfold in unpredictable ways. Ottawa, Canada

Christina Cameron

Acknowledgements

This book has been made possible through the generous support of the Canada Research Chairs program and the University of Montreal. Unlike many countries that celebrated the turn of the millennium with spectacular infrastructure projects, Canada invested in research and intellectual capital in 2000 by creating two thousand Canada Research Chairs at Canadian universities. The editor of this volume has benefitted from two seven-year terms as the Canada Research on Built Heritage at the University of Montreal. The Chair’s funds for research activities supported fourteen annual Montreal Round Tables on heritage conservation issues. The goal of these workshops was to explore the impact of conservation theory and practice on historic places in Canada and internationally, with a particular focus on UNESCO’s World Heritage sites. The Montreal Round Tables also benefitted from financial support awarded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada’s Connections Program, an initiative established to encourage the sharing of social sciences and humanities research beyond the campus. The Connections grants supported specific activities and tools to facilitate the flow and exchange of research knowledge. The Chair gratefully acknowledges other regular supporters of the Montreal Round Tables—the UNESCO Institute of Statistics located on the campus of the University of Montreal, the University’s Faculté de l’aménagement, Parks Canada, the School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation of Columbia University and the University of Tsukuba in Japan. The Chair wishes to express her sincere appreciation to the students who assisted her in organizing the workshops. Graduate students in the heritage conservation Masters program at the School of Architecture and the PhD program at the Faculté de l’aménagement at the University of Montreal gave wonderful support to the Chair, including logistical arrangements for participants and co-editing the yearly proceedings. Many thanks to Christine Boucher, Fanny Cardin-Pilon, Shabnam Inanloo Dailoo (post-doctoral fellow), Judith Herrmann, Hélène Santoni and Mallory Wilson. Without their help, the dissemination of the results of the workshops would not have happened in such a timely way.

ix

x

Acknowledgements

The Chair also wishes to acknowledge the support from faculty and staff of the university, including the Deans of the Faculté de l’aménagement, Irène Cinq-Mars, Giovanni de Paoli, Paul Lewis and Raphäel Fischler, as well as Directors of the School of Architecture, Georges Adamczyk, Anne Cormier and Jacques Lachapelle. In addition, financial and administrative advice from Natalie Cyr and Claudette Chapdelaine supported the smooth operations of the yearly events. A special thank you to Claudine Déom, a friend and faculty colleague in the heritage conservation program who undertook the organization of the student program at each meeting and succeeded in making these sessions stimulating, challenging and educational for the participants generally as well as the students who came from various institutions. The Chair expresses her gratitude to the more than 400 people who volunteered their time and expertise to participate in various Montreal Round Tables over the years. Too numerous to thank individually, they generously shared their knowledge and ideas so that the annual debates could plumb the depths of difficult conservation issues. A special note of appreciation to the fourteen authors who took up the challenge of looking back over a specific workshop and looking forward to the evolution of its themes since the debates. Each author has made an important contribution to this volume. Many thanks to Kristal Buckley, Claudine Déom, Angela Garvey, Julia Gersovitz, Ewan Hyslop, Nobuko Inaba, François LeBlanc, Nora J. Mitchell, Susan M. Ross, Mechtild Rössler, Ahmed Skounti, Julian Smith, Michael Turner and Christie Ellis Wong. Thank you to my friend Dixi Lambert, my Montreal host for fourteen years and my husband, Hugh Winsor, my chauffeur to and from our home in Ottawa to the railway station. I could not have done it without their support.

Contents

1

Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the Twenty-first Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christina Cameron

1

2

Heritage and Conservation of the Historic Urban Landscape . . . . . . Michael Turner

19

3

Tangible and Intangible Heritage: Two UNESCO Conventions . . . . Ahmed Skounti

33

4

World Heritage: Defining and Protecting Important Views . . . . . . . . Kristal Buckley

51

5

Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950–2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julia Gersovitz

73

6

Conserving Cultural Landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julian Smith

97

7

Sustainable Heritage-in-Practice: Relationships, Goals, Localization and Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Susan M. Ross

8

Getting the Message Across Looking Back on Heritage Conservation 20/20: Hindsight and Foresight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Claudine Déom

9

Wind Turbines and Landscape: Towards Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Nobuko Inaba

10 Journeys at the Intersection of Culture and Nature: Towards Integrated Approaches to Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Nora J. Mitchell

xi

xii

Contents

11 Interdisciplinarity in Heritage Conservation: Intersections with Climate Change and Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Ewan Hyslop 12 From Conservation to Reconstruction: The Influence of World Heritage on Theory and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 François LeBlanc 13 Balancing Tourism and Heritage Conservation: A World Heritage Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 Mechtild Rössler 14 Views from Young Professionals: Practice Makes Practice . . . . . . . . . 219 Angela Garvey 15 Looking Back, Stepping Forward: Student Perspectives on Fourteen Round Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Christie Ellis Wong 16 Looking Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Christina Cameron Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Contributors

Kristal Buckley Heritage Specialist and ICOMOS World Heritage Advisor, Melbourne, Australia Christina Cameron Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, Université de Montréal, Ottawa, Canada Claudine Déom School of Architecture, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada Angela Garvey ERA Architects, Toronto, Canada Julia Gersovitz McGill University, Montréal, Canada Ewan Hyslop Historic Environment Scotland, Edinburgh, UK Nobuko Inaba University of Tsukuba, Tokyo, Japan François LeBlanc Conservation Architect, Ottawa, Canada Nora J. Mitchell University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA Susan M. Ross School of Indigenous and Canadian Studies and School of Architecture and Urbanism, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada Mechtild Rössler CNRS-UMR 8504 Géographie-Cités Paris (France), Freiburg, Germany Ahmed Skounti Institut national des sciences de l’archéologie et du patrimoine, Rabat, Morocco Julian Smith Julian Smith Architects, Westport, Canada Michael Turner Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design, Jerusalem, Israel Christie Ellis Wong ERA Architects, Ottawa, Canada

xiii

Abbreviations

ACHS APT BAMB CAHP CBD CHN CHQ CMHC COE CPR CRED CRHP CVI EIA ETC EU FHBRO GCI GIAHS HES HIA ICC ICCROM ICOMOS ICSC ICTY IDHC IFLA IIPFWH INSAP

Association of Critical Heritage Studies Association for Preservation Technology Buildings as Material Banks Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals Convention on Biological Diversity Climate Heritage Network Canadian Heritage of Quebec Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Council of Europe Canadian Pacific Railway Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters Canadian Register of Historic Places Climate Vulnerability Index Environmental Impact Assessment European Tourism Commission European Union Federal Heritage Buildings Review Office Getty Conservation Institute Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems Historic Environment Scotland Heritage Impact Assessment International Criminal Court International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property International Council on Monuments and Sites International Coalition of Sites of Conscience International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Indigenous Diabetes Health Circle International Federation of Landscape Architects International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on World Heritage National Institute of Archaeology and Heritage Sciences, Morocco xv

xvi

IPCC ISCCL ITA IUCN MCM METI MLIT MMFA NGO OAG OECD OHF OUV RAIC SDG SEA TRC UAE UBC UN UNDRR UNEP UNESCO UNFCCC UNWTO UQAM WHITRAP WHO WTTC YMCA

Abbreviations

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes Integrated Territorial Approaches International Union for the Conservation of Nature Montreal Citizen’s Movement Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Japan Montreal Museum of Fine Arts Nongovernmental Organization Office of the Auditor General of Canada Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Ontario Heritage Foundation Outstanding Universal Value Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Sustainable Development Goal Strategic Environmental Assessment Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada United Arab Emirates University of British Columbia United Nations United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction United Nations Environmental Program United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change United Nations World Tourism Organization Université du Québec à Montréal World Heritage Institute of Training and Research for the Asia and the Pacific Region World Health Organization World Travel and Tourism Council Young Men’s Christian Association

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. 3.1

Fig. 3.2

Fig. 3.3

Fig. 3.4

Fig. 4.1

Fig. 4.2 Fig. 4.3

View from the Forbidden City towards the high density Chaoyang commercial centre Photo: Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Referential analysis: an historic urban landscape approach. Drawing by Michael Turner from his 1981 sketchbook . . . . . . . . Medina of Essaouira (formerly Mogador) World Heritage site, Morocco. Photograph from la Direction provinciale de la Culture d’Essaouira, Morocco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jemaa El Fna, intangible cultural heritage, also listed as Medina of Marrakesh World Heritage site. Photograph from UNESCO, Jane Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rabat, Modern Capital and Historic City: a Shared Heritage, World Heritage site. Photograph from la Fondation pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel de Rabat, Morocco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Taskiwine Martial Dance of the Western High Atlas, Morocco. Photograph from l’Association Targa-Aide, Morocco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . View of the Rhine River Valley at the Lorelei (left). Photograph from Pixaday, Konstantin Arzumanidis. Nineteenth-century image of the siren Lorelei (right). Image from Wikimeadia commons, Heinrich Pröhle, Lichtdruckbilder von Louis H. E. Schmidt (1886) . . . . . . . . . . . . The Torre Cajasol, Seville, designed by architect César Pelli. Photograph from Pixabay, José Carranco Castillo . . . . . . . The Waldschlösschen Bridge, Dresden Elbe Valley, Germany. Construction of the bridge led to the deletion of the property from the World Heritage List in 2009. Photograph from Pixabay, Cornell Frühauf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26 28

37

40

43

46

58 59

60

xvii

xviii

Fig. 4.4

Fig. 4.5

Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2

Fig. 5.3

Fig. 5.4

Fig. 5.5

Fig. 5.6

Fig. 6.1

Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2 Fig. 8.1

Fig. 8.2

Fig. 8.3

List of Figures

The rapid growth in cruise ship arrivals in historic port cities like Valletta, Malta can dramatically affect important views and the experience of place for local communities and visitors alike. The massive size of cruise vessels can overwhelm the scale of the historic buildings. Photograph from Pixabay, Wizartmedia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Completed in 2003, London’s “gherkin” was designed by Foster + Partners, and won the Royal Institute of British Architects Stirling Prize for excellence in architecture in 2004. The design was required to take into account protected sight lines to St. Paul’s Cathedral. Photograph from Pixabay, Steve Bidmead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hurtubise house, Westmount, Canada in 2014. Photograph from Canadian Heritage of Quebec, Jean Gagnon . . . . . . . . . . . . Row houses on Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, Canada in 1980, prior to Place Mercantile project. Photograph from Devencore, Montreal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Place Mercantile, Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, Canada, view of junction between historic house and office tower. Photograph by Julia Gersovitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Place Mercantile, Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, Canada, view of reconstructed houses looking west. Photograph by Julia Gersovitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maison Alcan, view looking west along Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, Canada in 1980 before project start. Photograph by Julia Gersovitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maison Alcan, view looking west along Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, Canada in 1983 after project completion. Photograph by Julia Gersovitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cognitive mapping in the form of a kolam, from Madurai, South India. These kinds of drawings provide both physical and cultural understandings of place. Drawing by Julian Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Benny Farm, Montreal, Canada in 2017 with community gardens in foreground. Photograph by Susan Ross . . . . . . . . . . . . Buchanan building, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada in 2016. Photograph by Susan Ross . . . . . . . Community involvement at Building 7 at Pointe-Saint-Charles in Montréal, Canada during the opening in 2018. Photograph from Bâtiment 7 . . . . . . Cultural activities at Building 7 at Pointe-Saint-Charles in Montréal, Canada during the opening in 2018. Photograph from Bâtiment 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heritage and environmental movements in Canada: three phases. Drawing by Julian Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

68 78

85

86

86

87

88

111 123 125

135

135 136

List of Figures

Fig. 9.1

Fig. 9.2

Fig. 9.3

Fig. 10.1

Fig. 10.2

Fig. 10.3

Fig. 11.1

Fig. 11.2

Illustration of the stage design at Chanel’s Spring 2013 fashion show in Paris, France with wind turbines and solar panel floor. Drawing by Nobuko Inaba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diagram showing how to identify the degree of disturbance of views by wind turbines. Diagram from the Technical Guideline on Examination of Wind Farms in National and Quasi-National Parks, Ministry of Environment, Japan, 2013. https://www.env.go.jp/press/files/jp/21843.pdf . . . . Ukiyoe print by Utagawa Hiroshige depicting the beach of Choshi in Shimosa Province, Japan. Photograph from the collection of the National Diet Library, Japan, Famous Places in the Sixty Odd Provinces,1853. It is feared that wind turbines have negative impact on this historically known scenic view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pimachiowin Aki, Canada was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2018 for natural and cultural values. It served as a catalyst for further consideration of how to effectively address the interactions of culture and nature during evaluation of World Heritage sites. Photograph © IUCN/Bastian Bertzky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The English Lake District, United Kingdom served as a test case for the inclusion of rural landscapes on the World Heritage List in the 1980s and was inscribed in 2017 for cultural values alone. Photograph by Nora Mitchell . . . . . . . . In 1993, Tongariro National Park, New Zealand became the first property to be inscribed on the World Heritage List under revised criteria for cultural landscapes. The mountains at the heart of the park have cultural and religious significance for the M¯aori people and symbolize the spiritual links between this community and its environment. Photograph © UNESCO/S.A. Tabbasum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caerlaverock Castle in south Scotland, abandoned in the seventeenth century, showing increased biological colonization and water penetration to exposed masonry resulting from higher temperatures and rainfall levels occurring since the 1960s. Photograph by Ewan Hyslop . . . . . . . The 5000-year-old domestic settlement at Skara Brae, part of the Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage site, protected by a defensive sea wall and under increasing pressure from coastal erosion. The unprotected coastal edge in the foreground is retreating at c.40 cm per year, and increasing. Photograph by Ewan Hyslop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xix

143

148

151

156

159

162

182

183

xx

Fig. 11.3

Fig. 12.1

Fig. 12.2

Fig. 12.3

Fig. 12.4

Fig. 12.5

Fig. 12.6

Fig. 14.1 Fig. 14.2 Fig. 14.3 Fig. 15.1

Fig. 15.2

List of Figures

Climate change risk analysis for Fort George, an eighteenth-century coastal fortress in northeast Scotland, showing “hazard maps” generated for groundwater flooding, coastal flooding, slope instability and coastal erosion. Photograph from Historic Environment Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emmanuel Macron, Président de la République française on 16 April 2019. Photograph from The Guardian, 16 April 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/ 2019/apr/16/emmanuel-macron-we-will-rebuild-notredame-within-five-years-video . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organizers and participants at the eleventh Montreal Round Table in March 2016. Photograph from Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, Mardjane Amin . . . . . . . . . . . A photo published by the Islamic State shows the destruction of the Baalshamin Temple, over 2,000 years old, located in the ancient city of Palmyra, Syria. Photograph from The Washington Post, 26 August 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-temple-anda-civilization-fall/2015/08/26/793133be-4b5e-11e5-bfb99736d04fc8e4_story.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An example of symbolic volumetric reconstruction is the blast furnace at les Forges du Saint-Maurice, Québec, Canada. Photograph by François LeBlanc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Empty niche in the cliff of the Bamiyan valley in Afghanistan where a monumental sixth-century statue of Buddha stood until it was destroyed by the Taliban in 2001. Photograph by Nobuko Inaba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An example of identical reconstruction is the Fortress of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia, Canada. Photograph from Wikimedia Commons, Martin St-Amant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chedoke Estate from the Bruce Trail, Canada in 2013. Photograph by Angela Garvey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community garden at right foreground in 2018 at Willowbank, Canada. Photograph by Alex Pawelek . . . . . . . . . Peace and progress in the Willowbank garden, Canada in 2016. Photograph by Theresa Felicetti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The six student panelists at the fourteenth Montreal Round Table, from left to right: Cameron Piper, Aly Bousfield, Marie-Christine St-Arnaud, Nansen Murray, Shreya Goshal, Christie Ellis Wong. Drawing by Christie Ellis Wong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vienna’s skyline: the city’s historic fabric contrasts with more recent development. Drawing by Christie Ellis Wong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

185

190

191

192

195

196

201 228 229 230

237

239

List of Figures

Fig. 15.3

A “low heritage” building which assuredly has potential. We need only reframe the ways we look to find value in small h-heritage assets. Drawing by Christie Ellis Wong . . . . .

xxi

244

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Table 4.1

Table 10.1

Table 11.1

Table 11.2

Table 12.1

Table 13.1

Montreal Round Tables of the Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage. Prepared by Christina Cameron . . . . . . . . . . World Heritage Committee consideration of “views” in reports on World Heritage danger listing, state of conservation and nominations (2008 and 2018). Table by Kristal Buckley based on World Heritage Committee documents as indicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . World Heritage definitions of cultural and natural heritage. Text from UNESCO, World Heritage Convention, 1972, art. 1–2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Global tourist arrival numbers in billions comparing 2005, 2016 and projected data for 2030. Ewan Hyslop, based on data from UNWTO and International Transport Forum, Transport-Related CO2 Emissions of the Tourism Sector: Modelling Results, 2019, 31, 46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical and projected global average sea level rise, combining IPCC scenarios and rates based on Antarctic and Greenland ice loss (High and Extreme). The IPCC scenarios show the impact for different emissions pathways representing Low (RCP2.6), Intermediate (RCP4.5) and High (RCP8.5). Table by Ewan Hylsop (adapted from US Global Change Research Program, Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Impacts, Risks and Adaptation in the United States, 2018, 85) . Chronological table of instruments and events associated with reconstruction. Table compiled from bibliographic sources by François LeBlanc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tourism statistics at selected cultural/mixed World Heritage sites. Table by Mechtild Rössler based on information collected at the UNESCO World Heritage Centre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

55

160

180

182

202

210 xxiii

xxiv

Table 13.2

List of Tables

Tourism issues identified at selected sites identified by the World Heritage Committee. Table by Mechtild Rössler based on information collected at the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, including state of conservation reports from State Parties to the World Heritage Committee . . .

211

Chapter 1

Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the Twenty-first Century Christina Cameron

Abstract This book focuses on current trends in cultural heritage conservation and their influence on heritage practice. It draws on fourteen Montreal Round Tables of the Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage at the University of Montreal, held between 2006 and 2018. These meetings linked theory and practice by considering the doctrinal underpinnings of heritage conservation policy as well as practical solutions at the site level. Whether understood through the perspective of World Heritage, historic urban landscapes, heritage tourism, climate change or the nature-culture nexus, challenging issues call for innovative approaches to protect and conserve our heritage places. The book brings together the voices of different stakeholders in the heritage conservation process, ranging from scholars, experts, site managers and government officials to young professionals and students. The chapters of this book, written by participants at various Round Table sessions, explore fourteen international debates on difficult conservation issues encountered by the World Heritage Committee and heritage generally in the first two decades of the twenty-first century. Keywords World Heritage · UNESCO conventions · Conservation theory · Cultural landscapes · Heritage tourism · Conservation trends

1.1 Introduction This book offers a snapshot of heritage conservation theory, practice and concerns in the first two decades of the twenty-first century. It draws on discussions at fourteen annual Montreal Round Tables, a major activity of the Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage at the University of Montreal. Active from 2005 to 2019, the Chair embraced a vision for heritage conservation that was oriented towards the future and open to the world. With a view to looking forward by valuing the past, the activities of the Chair aimed to stimulate a dialogue at the local, national and international level on the complex issues of heritage conservation and development. C. Cameron (B) Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, Université de Montréal, Ottawa, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Cameron (ed.), Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century, Creativity, Heritage and the City 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2_1

1

2

C. Cameron

The overall goal of the Montreal Round Tables was to enhance understanding of the impact of conservation theory and practice on historic places in Canada and internationally, with a particular focus on UNESCO’s World Heritage sites. The meetings brought together Canadian and international experts with experience in heritage conservation, sustainable building practices and related disciplines working in public, private, academic and non-governmental sectors. They aimed to foster an exchange of research and experience in order to clarify how heritage conservation theory and practice might better incorporate broad perspectives from various related disciplines. Each year, some thirty Canadian and international experts as well as students and emerging scholars in heritage conservation studies joined in freewheeling discussions over three days. Speakers shared their specialized knowledge as a means of framing the discussions. In line with the educational mandate of the Canada Research Chairs program, students were encouraged to participate in the deliberations as presenters, session chairs, debaters, rapporteurs and research assistants. Student participation fulfilled one of the Chair’s roles in transmitting knowledge to the next generation of heritage stewards, on the understanding that long-term success in heritage conservation will depend on future generations taking over such responsibilities. Participants included students from the graduate heritage conservation programs at the University of Montreal, Carleton University in Ottawa, Columbia University in New York City, Tsukuba University in Tokyo, as well as the diploma program at the Willowbank School for Restoration Arts in Queenston. In all, more than four hundred different individuals participated in one or more sessions over the fourteen years. To make these discussions available to a more general audience, the proceedings of the Montreal Round Tables were posted on the Chair’s website within three months of each meeting.1 The Montreal Round Tables contributed to the Chair’s research program by suggesting new lines of enquiry. Drawing on discussions at the annual sessions of the World Heritage Committee, the Chair selected difficult topics of current interest to researchers and practitioners for which there are no easy solutions. The subjects were aligned with the Chair’s research program that explored the evolving notion of built heritage and the impacts of this evolution on the processes of conservation, development, appropriation, management and use of historic places. A key component of this change was the shifting definition of what constitutes built heritage, evolving from isolated architectural monuments to a broad definition that includes streetscapes, neighbourhoods, rural cultural landscapes, engineering works, routes and historic urban landscapes. The research program focused on four themes: evaluating the gap between general policy frameworks and actual conservation activities at the site level; examining processes and methodologies for values-based planning and management of heritage properties; analysing Canadian conservation practice

1

These proceedings are now permanently available on-line in the library of the University of Montreal. Cameron, “Proceedings of the Montreal Round Tables (2006–2018).”

1 Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the Twenty-first Century

3

Table 1.1 Montreal Round Tables of the Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage. Prepared by Christina Cameron 2006

Heritage and the Conservation of Historic Urban Landscapes

2007

Tangible and Intangible Heritage: Two UNESCO Conventions

2008

World Heritage: Defining and Protecting “Important Views”

2009

Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950-2000

2010

Conserving Cultural Landscapes

2011

Impact of Sustainability Strategies on Heritage Conservation Practice

2012

Heritage Conservation 20/20: Hindsight and Foresight

2013

Wind Turbines and Landscape: Towards Sustainable Development

2014

Exploring the Cultural Value of Nature: a World Heritage Context

2015

Interdisciplinarity and Heritage Conservation: from Theory to Practice

2016

From Conservation to Reconstruction: how World Heritage is Changing Theory and Practice

2017

Balancing Tourism and Heritage Conservation: a World Heritage Context

2018

Sites of Memory: Conservation Challenges in a World Heritage Context

2018

Looking Back, Looking Forward: Heritage Conservation and Thirteen Montreal Round Tables

in the twentieth century; and assessing the global influence of UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention on conservation practice.2

1.2 Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the Twenty-First Century This book focuses on trends in cultural heritage conservation during the first two decades of the twenty-first century. The authors of each chapter made presentations at the last Montreal Round Table held in December 2018. To mark the final year of the Canada Research Chair’s mandate, this fourteenth Round Table took the opportunity to reflect on the previous sessions (Table 1.1). Each presenter gave a synopsis of a specific Round Table, up-dated the findings with more recent activities and predicted how their particular issue might evolve in the future. The final two chapters capture the views of young professionals and students in heritage conservation who express what lies ahead from their perspectives. As context for the individual chapters, this introduction begins with an overview of the historical development of heritage conservation practice followed by an examination of the main features of the paradigm shift that occurred in the first two decades of the twenty-first century. 2

Cameron, “Canada Research Chair.”

4

C. Cameron

1.3 Historical Development of Heritage Conservation Practice Interest in heritage conservation emerged in the nineteenth century. After World War II, it was consolidated into formal principles and processes. Shifts in doctrine and practice in the last decade of the twentieth century hinted at a new paradigm in heritage conservation practice that developed fully in the first two decades of our current century. The Nineteenth Century The desire to conserve the past emerged in the nineteenth century in reaction to widespread destruction of historic buildings. Heritage conservationists sought to preserve monuments and sites from the adverse effects of modernity. Essentially confrontational and reactive at that time, heritage conservation was a means to safeguard architectural achievements and symbols of cultural identity. Societal ruptures caused by rapid industrialization led to the rise of conservation doctrine centred on a concept of historical monuments and a consciousness of an historical past separate from the present. With regard to doctrine, a fundamental debate between the writings of Viollet-le-Duc3 and John Ruskin4 centred on how to remember the past. With regard to actual practice, Adolphe Napoléon Didron took the position that “for ancient monuments, it is better to consolidate than repair, better to repair than to restore, better to restore than to reconstruct.”5 Consolidation following World War II The second half of the twentieth century was a period of consolidation and codification of these ideas. The underlying assumption was a distinction between the “past” and the “present,” an idea that supports the notion that heritage places are different and separate from the rest of the built environment. This duality is reflected in the terminology of charters and other standardsetting instruments like the World Heritage Convention. In practical terms, heritage practitioners focused on a select number of prominent monuments and sites with a view to protecting them from changes that might negatively affect their values. In 1965, with the encouragement of UNESCO, the establishment of a nongovernmental organization known as the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) created an international (albeit mostly European) network of experts and specialists in the field. As part of the post-war codification of conservation practice, ICOMOS adopted the 1964 International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, known as the Venice Charter. This key doctrinal text drew on ideas from the previous century. Particularly influential was the 1886 publication by Italian architect Camillo Boito on eight principles for heritage conservation that provide the philosophical basis for the Venice Charter.6 With an emphasis on isolated prestigious monuments, the Venice Charter focuses mainly

3

Viollet-le-Duc, “Restauration,” 14–34. Ruskin, The Seven Lamps. 5 Didron, “Réparation,” 125. 6 Boito, “Nos monuments anciens,” 41. 4

1 Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the Twenty-first Century

5

on architectural and historical values as well as on the physical materiality of this heritage.7 The cultural dimension of UNESCO’s 1972 World Heritage Convention emerged from this context. The influence of the Venice Charter and ICOMOS is evident in the convention’s definition of cultural heritage as monuments, groups of buildings and sites, with a focus on values from the point of view of history, art or science.8 The Venice Charter and the World Heritage Convention emphasize the predominant role of experts and specialists in heritage conservation activities and give priority to the conservation, restoration and reconstruction of the physical aspects of monuments and sites. This approach does not adequately consider the human values associated with them. It also tends to exclude civil society and the public from heritage issues, failing to broaden the conversation beyond experts and specialists in heritage conservation. These factors among others set the stage for the evolution of heritage conservation practice in the twenty-first century. Precursors of a Paradigm Shift In the early 1990s, three important developments stand as precursors of change in conservation theory and practice, originating in discussions at the World Heritage Committee and rippling globally beyond this context. The first is the World Heritage framework for cultural landscapes that appeared after years of discussion in the World Heritage Committee’s Operational Guidelines in 1994. Of the three categories—designed, organically evolved and associative cultural landscapes—the last one boldly embraces non-material values, deriving significance “by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent.”9 The category of associative cultural landscapes influenced perceptions about what constitutes Outstanding Universal Value and led to increased acknowledgement of the complexity and diversity of values associated with places. The second development is the ground-breaking Nara Conference on Authenticity. Held in Japan in 1994 under the aegis of Japan and ICOMOS, this meeting of international experts built the foundation for a new vision of conservation doctrine.10 A key outcome of the Nara deliberations is an understanding that authenticity judgements are relative, not universal. The Nara Document on authenticity expresses this idea clearly: “All judgements about values attributed to cultural properties as well as the credibility of related information sources may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture. It is thus not possible to base judgements of values and authenticity within fixed criteria. On the contrary, the respect due to all cultures requires that heritage properties must be considered and judged within the cultural contexts to which they belong.”11 7

ICOMOS. “International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments.” UNESCO, “Convention 1972,” art. 1. 9 UNESCO, Report on the seventeenth session, XIV.1; UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 1994,” par. 39; UNESCO, “Report of the Expert Group on Cultural landscapes,” III, 34-41. 10 Larsen, Nara Conference on Authenticity. 11 ICOMOS, “Nara Document,” art. 11. 8

6

C. Cameron

In addition, the Nara Document validates new information sources as a basis to construct heritage values beyond those included in the original World Heritage test of authenticity. The Nara Document broadened the qualifying condition of authenticity to include notions like use, traditions, language, spirit and feeling.12 These policy changes encouraged the inclusion of places with strong intangible and associative values. As a result, some subsequent inscriptions put greater emphasis on places where cultural traditions like language, dance, traditional practices and ceremony continue. The shift from universality to relativity as well as the expansion of attributes mark significant changes from earlier conservation doctrine found in the Venice Charter. The Nara Document has become a rallying point for a renewal of conservation theory and practice. The third development that presaged change is the Global Strategy for a balanced, representative and credible World Heritage List, endorsed by the World Heritage Committee in 1994. It proposed a new vision for cultural heritage that enlarged the scope by reaching beyond the usual historical, aesthetic and scientific values to take into account new perspectives. The Global Strategy diagnosed an imbalance in the World Heritage List, with over-representation of European sites, historic towns and elitist architecture, and under-representation of living cultures and vernacular expressions. “It was apparent to all the participants that from its inception the World Heritage List had been based on an almost exclusively ‘monumental’ concept of the cultural heritage, ignoring the fact that not only scientific knowledge but also intellectual attitudes towards the extent of the notion of cultural heritage, together with the perception and understanding of the history of human societies, had developed considerably in the past twenty years.”13 The strategy proposed an anthropological framework to recognize outstanding demonstrations of human coexistence with the land and human beings in society as a tool to encourage innovative nominations to the World Heritage List. Taken together, the associative cultural landscapes category, the Nara Document on authenticity and the Global Strategy for a balanced, representative and credible World Heritage List were harbingers of a paradigm shift in conservation theory and practice that unfolded in the twenty-first century.

1.4 Change in Twenty-First Century Conservation Among many possible indicators of change, four issues often surfaced at different Montreal Round Tables as signs of the new paradigm. These four issues are the evolution of heritage values, the prominence of landscape, expansion beyond traditional boundaries, and inclusion of communities and civil society. Taken together, these markers demonstrate the depth and complexity of change.

12 13

Ibid., art. 13. UNESCO, “Expert meeting on the Global Strategy,” 3.

1 Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the Twenty-first Century

7

Expanded Values in Theory and Practice The first two decades of the twentyfirst century saw a remarkable expansion of the range of values associated with historic places. Determination of significance moved beyond historical and architectural value to include social, economic and environmental considerations. Anticipating this shift in theory and practice at the turn of the millennium, the Getty Conservation Institute undertook ground-breaking research on the general phenomenon of heritage value.14 As the new century unfolded, a shift towards human values intensified, especially within the World Heritage system where associative values and sites of memory—including those with dark histories—became the focus of intense debate.15 Emphasis on intangible heritage gained momentum at the turn of the century under the influence of UNESCO’s 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. It is important to note that in the first thirty years of implementing the World Heritage Convention, no specific distinction between tangible and intangible heritage had been overtly drawn. A prime driver for explicit recognition of the intangible dimensions of World Heritage sites was likely the drafting of this 2003 convention. The preparatory material pointed to perceived weaknesses in the World Heritage Convention. According to the preliminary study, the new convention needed “to employ a broader anthropological notion of cultural heritage that encompasses intangibles (such as language, oral traditions and local know-how) associated with monuments and sites and as the social and cultural context within which they have been created.”16 As Ahmed Skounti surmises in his chapter on the two UNESCO conventions, the concepts underpinning the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity were directly contrary to the core concept of an exclusive World Heritage List based on the threshold of Outstanding Universal Value. Indeed, a clear signal to drafters not to replicate a so-called elitist approach is found in a preliminary draft of the 2003 Convention that proposed a threshold for listing intangible cultural heritage as “outstanding specific value.”17 The difference reflects the zeitgeist of each era. Following the two World Wars in the twentieth century, countries looked for elements that would connect people to one another. Among the outcomes of this approach were the creation of global organizations like the United Nations and its specialized agency UNESCO, as well as international instruments that focused on a common humanity and international solidarity. From this line of thinking comes the concept of Outstanding Universal Value for properties that are so exceptional that they transcend national boundaries to become important for all humanity.18 Some three decades later, confronted with

14

Avrami, Mason and de la Torre, Values; de la Torre, Assessing the Values; Mason, Economics. Cameron and Herrmann, Guidance and Capacity Building; International Coalition, Interpretation; ICOMOS, Evaluation of World Heritage Nominations; Beazley and Cameron, Study on Sites. 16 Blake, Preliminary Study, iv–v. 17 UNESCO, “Compilation of amendments,” 67, no 2. 18 UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2021,” par. 49. 15

8

C. Cameron

the homogenizing effects of globalization, emphasis shifted to cultural diversity, multiple values and community voices.19 In practice, the way value is defined influences conservation choices. Conservation practice that adopts values-based decision making has been useful in dissolving the boundaries between tangible and intangible heritage. For World Heritage, recent emphasis on associative value has had an impact on established conservation and management practices. Expanding values require different tools and new skills for practitioners, adding complexity to the work of heritage conservationists. For decades, practitioners have honed their skills and technical expertise in the conservation of physical fabric. The evolution towards social and cultural values calls for different approaches that require the involvement of many stakeholders as well as the protection of living communities and cultural traditions. Nowhere is this new context more evident than in the shifting doctrine on reconstruction. In his chapter, architect François LeBlanc documents the evolution of reconstruction theory, beginning with the romantic reconstruction of Williamsburg in the 1930s that sought to recapture in tangible form the early colonization of the United States of America. By the early 1970s, reconstruction of historic places, previously admired as a viable conservation approach, was vilified in conservation doctrine because it created a false sense of history. The ICOMOS 1964 Venice Charter called for minimal interventions in historic places and essentially prohibited reconstructions. For decades, the World Heritage Committee followed this doctrine, making rare exceptions but always reaffirming its fundamental opposition to reconstruction in its Operational Guidelines. The current version of the guidelines continues to state: “In relation to authenticity, the reconstruction of archaeological remains or historic buildings or districts is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances. Reconstruction is acceptable only on the basis of complete and detailed documentation and to no extent on conjecture.”20 In the new millennium, however, in tandem with rising interest in human and social values, the Committee reversed its long-held opposition to reconstruction of built heritage. This new perspective may well have been influenced by the 1999 version of Australia ICOMOS’s Burra Charter which accepts reconstruction if it reflects a pattern of use or cultural practice that sustains cultural significance.21 This shift in doctrine may also explain changes in the advice that ICOMOS presented over several years concerning the World Heritage nomination of the old bridge area of Mostar in Bosnia-Herzegovina, beginning with “no” and ending up with “yes.” ICOMOS ultimately justified the inscription on the basis of the restoration of cultural value—the intangible dimension of the property.22 19

Labadi and Long, “Introduction,” 1-16. UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2021,” par. 86. The initial wording for the test of authenticity is similar: “the Committee stressed that reconstruction is only acceptable if it is carried out on the basis of complete and detailed documentation on the original and to no extent on conjecture.” UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 1980,” par. 18.b. 21 Australia ICOMOS, “The Burra Charter 1999,” 20.1. 22 Cameron, “From Warsaw to Mostar,” 22–23. 20

1 Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the Twenty-first Century

9

In the twenty-first century, the deliberate destruction and traumatic loss of World Heritage sites in areas of conflict such as Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere form the backdrop to a more flexible approach to reconstruction formulated in the 2018 Warsaw Recommendation on Recovery and Reconstruction of Cultural Heritage.23 For heritage practitioners, issues of ethics and doctrine remain to be resolved. In considering the expansion of values, the question arises as to how to balance multiple values in conservation and management decisions. In the World Heritage system, the focus on Outstanding Universal Value can be seen as a shortcoming that gives priority to the international value of the sites. Committee direction is clear. The statement of Outstanding Universal Value is “the key reference for the future effective protection and management of the property.”24 The weakness in this approach lies in the possibility that other values of the site will be ignored, even though the committee’s own rules allow it to make other recommendations for a more comprehensive protection and management of the property.25 By creating a hierarchy of values, conservation theory is out of step with current needs. To avoid giving priority to one set of values over another, a new guiding principle for decision making focuses on seeking balance among multiple values. In the future, a holistic approach that considers all values—be they international, national or communitybased—will be required to ensure that all elements are considered in strategies to conserve and manage historic places.

1.5 Landscape A key development during the first two decades of the twenty-first century is an upsurge of interest in landscapes as part of historic places. Concepts for cultural landscapes and historic urban landscapes, the Nature-Culture Journey embraced by both ICOMOS and IUCN, and an Indigenous approach that integrates cultural and natural heritage as a seamless whole are transforming the perception and practice of heritage conservation. Protecting important views A consideration that emerged at this time is the importance of the setting and significant views to and from historic places. Sometimes called visual integrity—a term that lacks clear definition—the issue concerns the impact of development projects in or near places of historic significance. This complex subject encompasses static and dynamic views, points of view and viewpoints, tangible characteristics and symbolic associations. To date, the heritage community does not have a clear framework for identifying and managing a panorama of views with multiple interpretations. As a first step, it requires an understanding of the specific character of each historic place on a landscape scale. Heritage designation processes tend to focus on sites but not on views. In those cases where views are 23

“Warsaw Recommendation.” UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2021,” par. 51. 25 Ibid., par. 156. 24

10

C. Cameron

identified as part of the heritage designation process, they tend to focus on exceptional views, ignoring other relevant but less familiar ones. The protection of views came to the attention of the World Heritage Committee at the beginning of the twenty-first century with reports on development projects that threatened viewscapes at Vienna, Cologne and Dresden. Even though the committee has no jurisdiction beyond the limits of World Heritage sites and their inscribed buffer zones,26 it nonetheless adopted decisions that reached beyond these approved boundaries, calling for “visual impact studies” and respect for “visual integrity.” In her chapter, Kristal Buckley examines important views and concludes that there is no general agreement on what constitutes visual impact in relation to heritage buildings and landscapes, and no accepted standard methodology for assessing such impacts. For World Heritage sites, she emphasizes the need for identification of important views at the time of inscription and notes the current failure of statements of Outstanding Universal Value to do so. She acknowledges that work on buffer zones and impact assessment is underway but finds it inadequate to address the protection of views and setting. She concludes that the goal of defining and protecting important views is still relevant and that buffer zone management remains a challenge. She cautions that, without better tools and guidance, judgements will remain subjective and contested. Deepening the concept of cultural landscape The term “cultural landscape” has gained global recognition due to the powerful influence of the World Heritage system. In the 1990s, the World Heritage Committee defined the term as places that embody interaction between human beings and their natural environment, subdividing such places into three categories: designed landscapes, organically evolved and relict landscapes, and associative landscapes. In the twenty-first century, further reflection is deepening our understanding of the term. While World Heritage considers the category as a type of property, a new interpretation includes the idea of a “cultural landscape approach,” a way of going beyond an understanding anchored exclusively in the past. In his chapter on conserving cultural landscapes, Julian Smith draws a distinction between historical landscapes and cultural landscapes, especially with regard to conservation approaches. Historical landscapes look to the past, have clear boundaries and are defined by discipline experts such as landscape architects, cultural geographers and anthropologists. Conservation of historical landscapes follows a curatorial approach usually adopted for historic buildings. On the other hand, cultural landscapes exist in the present, featuring layers of meaning and shifting boundaries. They are places that reflect the patterns of human activity shaped by geography. The identification of values at cultural landscapes is no longer the exclusive domain of heritage professionals. These values are difficult to map because significance lies in a shared sense of belonging, identity and continuity, thus requiring a participatory process that involves multiple stakeholders including residents within the landscape, tourists, farmers, foresters, commercial interests, traditional communities and so forth.

26

Ibid., par. 104–107.

1 Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the Twenty-first Century

11

Values of inhabited landscapes range from design and beauty to biodiversity, food sources, medicinal plants, building materials, spiritual support as well as repositories of memory and identity. Unlike historical landscapes that have static values to be protected in perpetuity, cultural landscapes are evolving in a landscape without clear boundaries. New values continue to be added to cultural landscapes, making them dynamic places. As such, they represent a paradigm shift for heritage conservation. Because they evolve organically with multiple layers of meaning, cultural landscapes challenge existing heritage practice that is oriented towards the conservation of unique, rare and outstanding examples. The culture-nature continuum The introduction of the cultural landscapes framework in 1992 resulted in the successful World Heritage inscription of many properties with combined cultural and natural values. At the same time, the adoption of the associative cultural landscape category sparked a deeper reflection on the culture-nature continuum. Although the World Heritage Convention is the only international agreement that combines cultural and natural heritage in one conservation treaty, several factors worked against that vision. Among them, narrow academic disciplines and administrative arrangements, including the structures within which States Parties, Advisory Bodies and the UNESCO World Heritage secretariat operate, create a resistance to a holistic approach to cultural and natural heritage. In her chapter on the intersection of culture and nature, Nora J. Mitchell traces the development of early concepts for protected natural areas and highlights current international initiatives to bridge the gap such as the Nature-Culture Journey of IUCN and ICOMOS. She discusses the Canadian nomination of Pimachiowin Aki, a large boreal forest site that straddles the Manitoba-Ontario border. Home to several First Nations Anishinaabe communities, the property presented a challenge for the World Heritage system. For the Anishinaabe, there is no distinction between culture and nature. The people belong to the land and live in harmony with the natural environment and its spirits. Within the World Heritage cultural landscapes framework, the value of nature is not deemed to be outstanding nor is it well-defined. On the other hand, an Indigenous model perceives culture and nature as a seamless whole, a dynamic symbiosis that encourages both change and cultural continuity. Indigenous cultural landscapes are valued essentially for relationships and activities where knowledge, practices and living heritage embody cultural identity. For over five years, the World Heritage Committee debated whether cultural systems necessary to sustain the natural values of inhabited ecosystems and the cultural value of nature could be considered exceptional. When Pimachiowin Aki was eventually listed as a World Heritage site in 2018, the committee acknowledged the exceptionality of the unbreakable bond between people and nature in large protected areas. This decision marks a paradigm shift for Indigenous cultural landscapes, one that recognizes both tangible and intangible elements, as well as the seamless interaction between the land and the people living there. The culture-nature continuum also affected an understanding of urban areas, marking a shift away from a preoccupation with the historic city as a visual object to an interest in the historic environment as a space for ritual and human experience. In his chapter, Michael Turner traces this shift, noting the importance of holistic approaches

12

C. Cameron

like the 1994 ICCROM course on Integrated Territorial Approaches (ITA), the 2005 ICOMOS Xi’an Declaration on setting and the 2008 ICOMOS symposium on the spirit of place. The 2005 Vienna Memorandum opened a debate on the conservation of historic cities and the insertion of contemporary architecture, although the landscape component appears to have been added as an afterthought, not as an integrated component. Turner compares the Vienna Memorandum to a booster rocket, launching the debate that culminated in the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape. This recommendation adopts an ecological approach wherein the values of historic urban spaces are defined by the experience of those who live there. In other words, not the landscape observed but the landscape experienced.

1.6 New Approaches This increased interest in landscapes affects heritage practice. Whether one is dealing with cultural landscapes, historic cities, sacred natural landscapes or sites with associative values, these places share common characteristics: they are dynamic living places subject to continual change and they embody multiple values, both tangible and intangible. It is not by accident that a recent definition for protected natural areas goes beyond biodiversity to include spiritual and cultural aspects, associated ecosystem benefits, local community needs and a broader spectrum of management systems.27 The early twenty-first century has also seen an expansion of heritage conservation practice beyond its traditional disciplinary boundaries. Be it the United Nations sustainable development agenda, the phenomenon of mass tourism, the ominous indications of climate change or the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage by extremists, external considerations have positioned cultural heritage in the broader concerns of our time. This expansion into uncharted territory has had an impact on heritage conservation practice. Heritage practitioners as facilitators Most cultural landscapes evolve organically. They are recognizable by their large size, layered values, and their active social and cultural role. There is relatively little guidance available on how to conserve them. Because cultural or humanized landscapes are dynamic systems with people at the centre, the characteristics that require conservation are not only physical attributes, but intangible attributes like feeling, meaning and cultural traditions that often influence landscape heritage. This challenge calls for new models and mechanisms that bring all stakeholders together in an effort to harmonize disparate policies and processes into a holistic system at a landscape scale. The role of heritage conservationists must necessarily shift from expert to facilitator, convenor, or catalyst in order to create a decision making process that engages the participation of those who inhabit these special places. In the context of diverse stakeholders and multiple goals,

27

Dudley, Guidelines, 2–3.

1 Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the Twenty-first Century

13

heritage practitioners can contribute by offering a process for facilitating discussions in order to reach consensus on values and effective governance structures.28 Sustainability In her chapter on sustainable heritage practice, Susan Ross traces recent global developments in the pursuit of sustainability and examines ways that heritage conservation activities can contribute to this effort. She highlights the issue of net zero waste, proposing that now is the time to encourage the retrofitting and reuse of buildings. To make inroads into the sustainable development debate, Ross argues that heritage conservationists need to expand their focus to include all existing building stock as a way of emphasizing the embedded value of existing materials and the avoided environmental impact of demolition. Additional reasons to support rehabilitation of existing buildings include social sustainability through the engagement of local craftspeople, and cultural sustainability through the maintenance of human-scale neighbourhoods. In this new field, what is missing are credible measurement systems to support heritage arguments. The shifting paradigm will require specialists to devise ways of quantifying the contribution of conservation to sustainability, be it buildings, landscapes or memory. In considering the pillars of sustainable development, the principal contribution of heritage conservation is likely to be to the social pillar. Quantitative measuring systems, including LEED, work against adaptive reuse projects and need more flexibility to reflect social sustainability, including factors like traditional knowledge, job creation, creativity and human scale. Ross concludes that it remains a challenge for heritage practitioners to develop indicators of success that measure social sustainability. Tourism Exponential growth in heritage-related tourism occurred in the late 1990s when the phenomenon of mass tourism became one of the prime reasons to seek World Heritage status. In the twenty-first century, marketing brochures and the proliferation of World Heritage tours are evidence that these sites serve as star attractions for international leisure travel. Targeted marketing of World Heritage sites has made them powerful engines for tourism-based economic development. According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), international tourism in all regions has grown exponentially, more than double in the last twenty years, and in 2019 it reached an astounding 1.5 billion international tourist arrivals. Prior to the appearance of COVID-19, the organization predicted a growth of three to four percent annually. Mass tourism has often had a negative impact on the physical infrastructure and visitor experience at heritage places. To counter these effects, some countries have successfully initiated visitor management strategies by using electronic time-bound tickets to manage visitor flows or by enforcing visitor codes of conduct. While such measures work well for places with controlled boundaries, they are ineffective for larger sites with multiple points of access like historic cities, cultural landscapes and heritage canals. To achieve conservation goals in these situations, heritage practitioners have to reach out to other sectors, including local governments and businesses as well as the tourism industry. In her chapter on balancing tourism and heritage conservation, 28

Myers et al., Consensus Building.

14

C. Cameron

Mechtild Rössler focuses on the relationship between World Heritage and sustainable tourism. She explains UNESCO’s strategy to enhance the capacity of site managers and local communities to address the challenges of mass tourism. The World Heritage Sustainable Tourism program provides guidance and tools to support countries in the management of their own tourism challenges.29 The key to success lies in the fostering of ongoing dialogue among interested parties, especially site managers and the tourism sector. Heritage practitioners and the tourism industry are exploring new approaches to encourage visitors to participate in the stewardship of heritage places. Contrary to the prevailing image of tourism as a destructive force that needs to be controlled, new models encourage tourists to play an active role in conserving historic places. Through participation in activities like ceremonies, rituals, cultural events and educational programs, tourists become co-creators of unique experiences and contribute to societal goals in host countries. Climate change In the twenty-first century, climate change threatens the conservation and, in some situations, the very survival of heritage sites. Practitioners have no choice but to reach beyond their traditional fields to engage with the science of climatology. In his chapter on interdisciplinarity in heritage conservation and its intersection with climate change and sustainability, Ewan Hyslop states that global scientific data confirm that climate change is accelerating, that storms and rain will increase, and that temperatures are expected to rise. He points to the impacts of increased precipitation on heritage sites including structural instability, material decay and loss of access due to flooding. To mitigate these impacts and increase resilience, practitioners will need to apply a hierarchy of treatments, including maintenance, proactive conservation, adaptation, restoration, and possibly relocation of historic buildings and archaeological vestiges. Research and conservation methodologies are being explored to educate site managers on the impacts of climate change and to support their mitigation efforts.30 If current predictions prove correct, heritage practitioners of the future will have to give top priority to climate change adaptation. Sadly, in addition to building resilience through knowledge and data, they will need to manage the inevitable loss of heritage places and resources. Deliberate destruction of cultural heritage The deliberate destruction of cultural heritage sites escalated in the twenty-first century, first in Afghanistan, then in Mali, Syria, Iraq and other countries. This situation has thrust cultural heritage into the world’s multilateral systems. The United Nations Security Council adopted three resolutions between 2015 and 2017 denouncing the destruction of cultural heritage in Syria and Iraq, adopting sanctions against illegal commercial trading of antiquities, and condemning the commission of acts by ISIL (Da’esh) “involving murder ... as

29

UNESCO, “World Heritage and Sustainable Tourism Programme.” Day et al., Climate Risk Assessment; “Climate Vulnerability Index.” This new tool assesses climate change risk to World Heritage sites and local communities.

30

1 Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the Twenty-first Century

15

well as its destruction of cultural heritage, including archaeological sites, and trafficking of cultural property.”31 The International Criminal Court at the Hague also weighed in on the protection of cultural heritage. It began with the precedent-setting conviction in 2004 of Miodrag Jokic for “destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity, and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science,” including the devastation at Dubrovnik World Heritage site.32 In 2016, the court found the Malian jihadist, Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, guilty of war crimes for the deliberate destruction of religious sites in Timbuktu. He was sentenced to nine years in prison.33 This historic judgement marks the first time that the destruction of cultural heritage has been deemed a war crime by the International Criminal Court. Engaging Communities and Civil Society In this century, the contribution of communities and civil society to successful heritage conservation is gradually being recognized. Prior to this period, heritage conservation activities were marked by inadequate public engagement in heritage issues and dialogue that failed to reach out beyond experts and specialists. In her chapter, Claudine Déom attributes the lack of public support for heritage conservation to a failure to communicate with mainstream media and diverse local communities about the rapidly evolving field of heritage conservation. This failure has led to a public misconception that heritage conservation aims to freeze the past and obstruct any contemporary developments. She argues that, on the contrary, current practice works towards an integrated vision for conservation that includes heritage in a broad cultural, economic, social and environmental system. It is a sign of its age that the 1972 World Heritage Convention places heritage conservation squarely in the hands of national governments without reference to non-state actors such as communities and civil society. It merely urges countries to give heritage a function in the life of their communities.34 The lofty threshold of Outstanding Universal Value often excludes living sites and community values. A current pressure in the World Heritage system is the rising demand from civil society and communities for meaningful involvement. Despite the significant role that civil society plays in protecting and conserving heritage sites in their local communities, the World Heritage Convention does not assign any official role to outside organizations and groups. By contrast, thirty years later, the 2003 UNESCO Convention on the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage explicitly recognizes that the evolving nature of intangible cultural heritage is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history. The convention calls for community participation in creating, maintaining and managing their heritage. Currently, mainstream practices are shifting in favour of community-driven

31

United Nations Security Council, “Resolution 2199,” “Resolution 2347,” “Resolution 2379.” International Criminal Tribunal, “Prosecutor v. Miodrag Jokic.” 33 International Criminal Court, “Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi.” 34 UNESCO, “Convention 1972,” art. 5. 32

16

C. Cameron

action. The challenge for heritage conservation practitioners is to find ways to work in this new non-hierarchical and integrative environment. The engagement of civil society and communities in decision making gives them a stake in heritage outcomes. In particular, meaningful dialogue improves conservation by fostering emotional attachment and encouraging greater documentation of rituals, belief systems and oral traditions related to historic and cultural places. In this optic, dialogue would replace prescriptive approaches to planning and decision making. Of particular interest is the holistic model of integrated systems of knowledge that Indigenous peoples bring to their relationship with the environment. In her chapter on the views of young professionals who participated in the Montreal Round Tables, Angela Garvey encourages greater engagement with communities and emphasizes the importance of applying an Indigenous lens to historic places. One can anticipate that heritage will play a more and more important role in the social, cultural and economic development of society. The 2005 Faro Convention that promotes the value of cultural heritage for society foresees shared responsibility and the use of heritage as a catalyst for positive social change.35 The challenge for heritage practitioners is to evolve towards the role of enabler. Practitioners will need to explain their activities and communicate clear positive messages about the contribution that historic places can make in society. These challenges call for new models and mechanisms that bring all stakeholders together in an effort to integrate historic places in the life of communities.

1.7 Concluding Remarks Change is the predominant trend in heritage conservation in the first two decades of the twenty-first century. The heritage movement has not left buildings behind but has expanded into the mainstream concerns of society, a situation that affects practice and calls for new tools and ideas. This paradigm shift is evident in new concepts of heritage and the changing roles of experts, local communities and institutions. As part of this change, heritage finds itself playing a broader societal role. The pressure to explore new processes for conservation, development, management and use of cultural heritage comes from the evolving scope of what constitutes an historic place. Heritage conservation is no longer an end in itself but rather a contributor to the quality of life and resilience of communities. In the past, practitioners have honed their skills and expertise in the technical conservation of historic places. The evolution towards social and human values calls for additional skills. This new context calls for engagement across diverse fields of knowledge—including Indigenous knowledge— and the re-positioning of heritage conservation within the sustainability agenda. No longer an isolated phenomenon, heritage conservation has become an instrument to build resilience and sustainability in the twenty-first century.

35

Council of Europe, “Convention on the Value.”

1 Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the Twenty-first Century

17

Christina Cameron CM Ph.D., professor emeritus, held the Canada Research Chair in Built Heritage at the University of Montreal from 2005 to 2019. She previously served with Parks Canada for more than thirty-five years. She has worked with the World Heritage Convention since 1987, chairing the Committee in 1990 and 2008, and co-authoring Many Voices, One Vision: The Early Years of the World Heritage Convention (2013). She is a founding member of OurWorldHeritage.

Chapter 2

Heritage and Conservation of the Historic Urban Landscape Michael Turner

Abstract Tracing the progression of the debate on urban heritage in the UNESCO system highlights a number of milestones—the Nairobi Recommendation, the Vienna Memorandum and the Historic Urban Landscape approach. Reinforced by the realities of the recent urban texts under the umbrella of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the UN-Habitat New Urban Agenda, innovative methodologies to heritage urbanism are evolving. In addressing urban transformations, the challenges are the speeds of change that affect our lives and environment within the digital age, the need for interdisciplinarity in research and the need for adopting a more integrative approach within the international agendas. Linking the past to the future is the role of history, tradition and continuity. This can be done by extending our understanding of the meaning of attributes, including those of the urban and natural environments as well as the tangible and intangible heritages. The chapter identifies a new urban taxonomy beyond the architectural monument or site, balancing temporal and spatial sustainability. Keywords Urban heritage · Vienna Memorandum · Historic Urban Landscape · New Urban Agenda · General System Theory

2.1 Looking back In the wake of World War II, the polemics of urban conservation resulting from socioeconomic expediency and political will generated a diversity of approaches, from the Soviet bloc communism to the new European democracies. This was the context of the ICOMOS Venice Charter that was adopted in 19641 with subsequent conferring documents, including two seminal milestones for urban heritage: the 1976 UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic 1

ICOMOS, “International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments.”

M. Turner (B) Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design, Jerusalem, Israel e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Cameron (ed.), Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century, Creativity, Heritage and the City 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2_2

19

20

M. Turner

Areas and the 1987 ICOMOS Washington Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas.2 With growing urbanization at the turn of the twenty-first century, pinpointed in the developments around the historic centre of Vienna, a debate raged at the 2005 conference on World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture that culminated in the Vienna Memorandum.3 At the same time, the monument and site became objects of further scrutiny in terms of context and setting, an issue which was debated, in parallel, at the 2005 ICOMOS General Assembly in Xi’an.4 From that time, and in the subsequent six years, urban heritage at UNESCO came into its own when finally the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape was adopted by the UNESCO General Conference in 2011.5 The Vienna Memorandum provided the inspiration for the 2006 Montreal Round Table, organized around four themes: the context for the Vienna Memorandum, the concept of historic urban landscape, the principles and guidelines for the conservation of historic urban landscapes, and the guidelines for the integration of contemporary architecture in historic ensembles.6 Just one year after the adoption of the Vienna Memorandum, the Round Table participants saw these principles and guidelines as a useful beginning for dialogue, but too general and ambiguous to offer clear and definitive guidance. The conclusions of the 2006 Round Table responded to the questions as to whether the principles and guidelines in the Vienna Memorandum provided an adequate foundation for the conservation of existing heritage and the integration of contemporary architecture in historic cities. The obloquy of pseudo-historical design was addressed by participants Julia Gersovitz and Gordon Bennett who perceived such misrepresentations as leftovers of the past while the real need was to address the context of contemporary architecture. This was recognized by Bennett as a catalogue of crimes against urban landscapes which included “the anomalous, the ugly, the banal, the brutal, the discordant, the offensive, the inappropriate (except for “façadism”), the transgressive or the incompatible.”7 In conclusion, Round Table participants characterized the Vienna Memorandum as a transitional document that served to initiate a debate that could continue for several years. Several participants praised the process that led to its creation, noting that dialogue among conservation specialists, politicians, investors, developers and the public was long overdue.8 The most significant discussion centred on the shift away from a preoccupation with perceiving the historic city as a visual object to an interest in the historic environment as a space for ritual and human experience. Julian Smith challenged the audience to discard the building object as a way of 2

UNESCO, “Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding;” ICOMOS, “Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns.” 3 UNESCO, “Vienna Memorandum.” 4 ICOMOS, “Xi’an Declaration.” 5 UNESCO, “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.” 6 Cameron, Heritage and the Conservation, 7. 7 Bennett, “The Vienna Memorandum,” 47-54. 8 Cameron, Heritage and the Conservation, 82.

2 Heritage and Conservation of the Historic Urban Landscape

21

understanding the urban landscape and to adopt an ecological approach that would emphasize human relationships, both physical and associative, thereby providing context. He believed that the way forward was in understanding the city through ritual and ceremony, wherein the values of historic urban spaces are defined by the experience of those who live there.9 Indeed, in hindsight, the Vienna Memorandum was a trigger for a more considered document that included social and cultural practices and values, economic processes and the intangible dimensions of heritage as related to diversity and identity. It emerged after a six-year global debate leading to the adoption of the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape and subsequently promoting culture as a driver and an enabler for sustainable development.10 The recognition of urban heritage as an integral component part of the city has been slow in coming. The first decades after World War II were characterized by viewing the urban fabric as a defined area, considered as a monument extension. The 1962 Malraux Act in France introduced “secteurs sauvegardés” within which the historic fabric was not only protected but also enhanced.11 In the later 1960s, four United Kingdom city conservation studies for Chichester, York, Bath and Chester revealed a change in mind-set, in the throes of post-war redevelopment and the concepts of a brave new world, structured in the 1967 Civic Amenities Act.12 During the same period, reconstructions from Warsaw to Le Havre, from Dresden to Coventry, and from Nagasaki to Manilla were based on political ideologies and social expedients as opposed to urban considerations. By 1975, the European Charter of Architectural Heritage proclaimed by the Declaration of Amsterdam heralded “integrated conservation”13 as a prelude to further approaches which were subsequently developed in 1994 at ICCROM with their Integrated Territorial and Urban Conservation program.14 However, managing urban values under threat from contemporary development was still guided by the architectural preservators as opposed to the urban conservators. An integrative approach demands an engagement with theories of interdisciplinarity. These theories have been the accepted currencies of the environmental sciences since the 1917 book On Growth and Form by the biologist D’Arcy Thompson15 to the patterns in set theory by John von Neumann in his 1958 posthumous publication on the Computer and the Brain.16 But it is the General System Theory of Ludwig von Bertalanffy that provides the theoretical base for the integrative approach to multidisciplinary processes. In applying these principles, there

9

Smith, “The Vienna Memorandum,” 67-71. UN System Task Team, “Culture.” 11 Kain and Phillips, “Conservation Planning in France,” 22-34. 12 Pendlebury and Strange, “Centenary Paper,” 361-92. 13 Council of Europe, “European Charter.” 14 Jokilehto, ICCROM Integrated Territorial, 1-37. 15 Thompson, On Growth and Form. 16 Von Neumann, The Computer. 10

22

M. Turner

will be the opportunity to reference other disciplines in our considerations of urban heritage as determined by the Round Table discussion.17 The utilization of urban resources over time, and the evaluation of progress through technological epochs and their effect on the urban environment are essential concerns in urban transformations. Stafford Beer in 1972 noted that for each extra unit of investment a decreasing improvement occurs—the law of diminishing returns. Even successful technologies may cease to be economic and “when these symptoms appear there is only one remedy. It is fruitless to imagine that extra effort, extra capital, can resurrect the moribund organism. A decision must be taken to superimpose a new growth curve upon the old. In the case of technology, this means embarking on fresh research.”18 Managing these changes in a constantly adapting urban fabric is the key to achieving temporal and spatial sustainability. In a similar vein almost half a century later, Thomas Friedman, author and New York Times columnist, gave a keynote presentation at the United Nations on the topic of the “changing political economy of globalization, the multilateral institutions and the 2030 Agenda.”19 Friedman emphasized the curve of exponential growth specifically relating to the global changes between 2007 and 2017. He contended that these years can be characterized by innovation and technological growth based on Moore’s Law20 highlighting the year 2007 as the point of change, between current and emerging technologies, with the invention of cloud computing. Here, the speed of change and the new language responded to the flows of interconnectivity providing examples such as friends morphing to the iPhone, Twitter and Facebook, E-commerce and Amazon, TenCent and Alibaba, ideas and messages on WhatsApp and WeChat, and payments and credit through PayPal and Alipay. In the fields of urbanism, we have to add to Friedman’s list, urban mobility with uber and get-taxi while managing our GPS with Google/Waze. This period also marked the urban decade between 2005 and 2016, from the Vienna Memorandum to the New Urban Agenda from UNHabitat III, merging with his 2007 technological change-point when over half of the world’s population became urban.21

17

Von Bertalanffy, General System Theory. Beer, Brain of the Firm, 10. 19 The joint meeting of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (UN-ECOSOC) and the Second Committee of the United Nations General Assembly was held on 7 October 2016. Friedman, “The Changing Political Economy.” 20 Written by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, Moore’s Law is commonly quoted as saying that every two years, the number of transistors that could fit on a microchip would double. Moore’s original paper said that the transistor count would double approximately every year for the ten-year period from 1965 to 1975 (Moore, “Cramming,” 114-7). The two-year timeframe came from a revised estimate published by Moore in 1985. 21 United Nations, World Urbanization. 18

2 Heritage and Conservation of the Historic Urban Landscape

23

2.2 The Current Status Allow me to highlight four strands that are affecting our current understanding of urbanization. The first is clearly the speed and rapidity of change that affects our lives and environment within the digital age, thereby redefining our notions of sustainability and resilience. The second and the third, the need for interdisciplinarity in research and the need for adopting a more integrative approach within the international agendas, are interconnected. The fourth, linking the past to the future, is the role of history, tradition and continuity.22 These strands, reinforced by the realities of the recent urban texts under the umbrella of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, have triggered new approaches to heritage urbanism. Other global mechanisms for the city are on the horizon, albeit in a silo mode, each addressing a particular component: UNESCO Creative Cities, UNDRR Making Cities Resilient, and WHO Healthy Cities focusing on UNEP environment and climate change. This is a Babelism that will need to be resolved by engaging the technological potential for an urban Esperanto and embracing the AI management of big data that will transform our lives. Attempting to define urban heritage with anachronistic tools led to a confusion between an approach and a category. The 2006 Montreal Round Table debated the relationship of the term “historic urban landscape” to other definitions like “cultural landscape,” “urban ensemble” and “heritage landscape.” To obviate the debate on categories, the term “historic urban landscape” was conceived as an approach so as not to be confused with cultural landscapes.23 However, terminology will have its own life and the term is becoming part and parcel of the urban lexicon, although this will demand further exegeses in reconsidering the multiple characterizations of the city. Yonca Erkan parses the terminology with “historic” representing the layers, old and new, “urban” being the tangible and intangible heritage, “landscape” representing the symbiosis of nature and culture, and the “approach” being the management of the whole landscape including community involvement and partnerships.24 She has proposed that it is possibly both a category for identification and conservation, and an approach for management and monitoring. This gives the historic urban landscape a role as an urban semiconductor, a facilitator providing a common denominator to the diverse mechanisms. The years 2015 and 2016 provided a swath of texts that has changed much of our thinking on urbanism and the relationship between conservation and development. These documents, adding to the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, include the UNDRR Sendai Framework with the Ten Essentials for resilient cities,25 and the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.26 To complete 22

Turner, “Repositioning Urban Heritage,” 1-6. Cameron, Heritage and the Conservation, 82. 24 Erkan, “The Way Forward,” 82-9. 25 United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, “The Ten Essentials.” 26 United Nations, “Agenda 2030.” 23

24

M. Turner

the story, there is the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS), launched in 2002 and instituted in 2015, as well as the 2015 Paris Agreement within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. With these marching orders, UNESCO prepared a global report on Culture: Urban Future presented at the UNHabitat III conference in Quito in 2016 where the New Urban Agenda was adopted.27 To date, the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape is being carefully monitored to understand its application in the urban scene, with reporting every four years to the UNESCO General Conference. In 2019, the General Conference reaffirmed “the importance of the 2011 Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape and of its implementation by Member States, in particular in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the New Urban Agenda, and the Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want.”28 Time will tell.

2.3 Challenges and Opportunities What are some of the challenges and opportunities for managing urban heritage? The geo-cultural factors around the world ensure that there is no single answer. On reviewing the many current texts and the potential of digital humanities to comprehend their meanings, we can distill the challenges that are currently being addressed. High on the agenda are the social transformations through migrations resulting in the acculturation of the city. These transformations are being fired by the digital revolution which is multiplying the available data on the city and its citizens, allowing for greater accessibility, opening up the potential for sharing knowledge and yet challenging our personal liberties. On the one hand, this is creating a unified global culture responding to World Heritage’s Outstanding Universal Value and on the other hand engendering local indigenous heritage. This revolution has brought about new methodologies for capacity building and dissemination, allowing for greater citizen engagement to bridge the global and local. In parallel, the urge for sustainable economic growth is vital, not just to balance the needs between generations but also to create a more inclusive and more resilient city and hinterland, linking rural and urban, thereby redefining the city and its boundaries and accepting new forms of urbanization. The bottom line is the importance of considering the integrative city at diverse scales: global, metropolis, city and neighborhood. This idea was developed in the UNESCO report to Habitat III with a global geographic survey on the role of culture for sustainable urban development together with a thematic approach identifying critical policy issues.29 The metropolis as a critical scale between the global and the city 27

UNESCO, Culture: Urban Future. UNESCO, “Consolidated Report.” 29 UNESCO, Culture: Urban Future, 125-236. The thematic reflections of the global report focus on the role of culture to promote a people-centred approach to sustainable urban development, ensure 28

2 Heritage and Conservation of the Historic Urban Landscape

25

will need to focus on urban-rural linkages and geo-cultural sustainability to balance density and growth. This growing role of the metropolis is likely to provide a better potential in creating innovative environmental solutions, supporting the relationships between culture and nature and adopting an approach which encourages cooling the city centres by reducing the economic heat from areas of historic interest. This may be achieved by better economic management of hotspots and provision of symbiotic interactions for the complexities of the inner city areas and outer fragments of the city. An interesting example in Beijing is the city government’s efforts to safeguard the historic city within the Ming and Qing dynasty walls by combining a restriction on high-rise buildings with a decision to develop a high density commercial centre some ten kilometers to the east of the city (Fig. 2.1) and an innovative adaptive reuse of the defunct steelworks to the west for the 2022 Winter Olympics. These measures have strengthened the multi-nuclear structure of the city and provided for a more sustainable management of the historic layers. However, this rigid zoning has created a bathtub effect with historic hutong-style city blocks surrounded by high-rise development.30 This raises the question of the changing urban setting and context of the historic city as opposed to the related conditions of integrity and authenticity of the individual historic monuments and architectural sites including the Imperial Palace and the Temple of Heaven. Setting and context were the main issues in the debate at the 2005 ICOMOS General Assembly in Xi’an. The meeting essentially viewed the terms through the lens of the monument, creating an urgent need to renew the debate in an urban perspective.31 We need to clarify our terminology. Let us again evoke the General System Theory and apply texts from the world of theatre and linguistics. Both setting and context may be understood in the theatre, where setting is the time and place, and context is the situation and circumstances. The setting is both the epoch and geographic location within a narrative. As a literary element, the setting helps initiate the main backdrop and mood for a story while the elements, or in heritage terms, the attributes, of setting may include culture, historical period, geography and time. Context is that which surrounds and gives meaning and is any information that can be used to characterize the situation within which something exists or happens, and that can assist in its explanation. Context is the text or speech that comes immediately before and after a phrase or piece of text and helps to clarify its meaning. The analogy to urban heritage is evident, pointing to a role for the buffer zone in extending beyond the notion of historic centre or ensemble to include the broader urban context and its geographical setting. Setting and context are further considered by Marc Augé in his book on non-places in which he relates to the notions of place and space by Michel de Certeau, with the street being transformed to an animated space by the

a quality urban environment for all, and foster integrated policy-making building on the power of culture. 30 Vanderklippe, “The Metal Kingdom.” 31 ICOMOS, “Xi’an Declaration,” art. 1-2.

26

M. Turner

Fig. 2.1 View from the Forbidden City towards the high density Chaoyang commercial centre Photo: Author

pedestrians as the intersection of moving bodies.32 He then quotes Merleau-Ponty in his Phenomenology of Perception, noting the distinction between “geometric” space and “anthropological” space in the sense of “existential” space, the scene of an experience of relations with the world essentially situated “in relation to a milieu.”33 The animated space of the city responds to people’s evolving aspirations and needs for community engagement. In his play Coriolanus, Shakespeare highlights his view that the people are the city, being the epitome of their liberties: Sicinius You are at point to lose your liberties: Martius would have all from you; Martius, Whom late you have named for consul. Menenius Fie, fie, fie! This is the way to kindle, not to quench. First Senator To unbuild the city and to lay all flat. 32 33

Augé, Non-Places, 122. Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology.

2 Heritage and Conservation of the Historic Urban Landscape

27

Sicinius What is the city but the people? All Plebeians True, The people are the city.34

This touches upon the potentia multitudinis or the power of the multitude elaborated by Spinoza some decades later in the seventeenth century.35 This notion has new meaning in the digital era when the people have been re-enfranchised through innovative technologies and computer applications to generate new forms of liberty. At the 2006 Montreal Round Table, Julian Smith stated that the problem is in our understanding and our capacity for documenting the urban landscape as a landscape of the imagination.36 And yet this is the landscape that is most central to the idea of cultural continuity. It is a landscape that is read differently by residents and visitors, by the powerful and by the marginalized. The “doing” and “seeing” translate into map signs from the mediaeval routes and itineraries to the current narrative as an inventory of geographical knowledge. In discussing the notion of beauty, Smith referred to the observations of a painter of Chinese landscapes “the most obvious form of beauty is the beauty of the landscape that we look at. The second, and deeper, form of beauty is that of the landscape that we travel through. And the third, and deepest form of beauty, is that of the landscape that we inhabit.”37 Indeed, shanshui, the Chinese term for landscape linked with the philosophy of Daoism that emphasizes harmony with the natural world, epitomizes these values and the renaming of the Recommendation as the Historic Urban Shanshui would be more than appropriate.38 Landscape is part of our collective perception of space. It responds to the recognition of natural and cultural diversities, their mutual interdependencies and a layering over time being the evidence of the past: multiple and cumulative layers of history. Mark Twain is attributed as saying that “history does not repeat itself but it rhymes.”39 These rhymes of historic layering and cultural inclusion may provide the poetry and soul of the city. Yi-Fu Tuan adds a new dimension and considers how people feel and think about space and the effects over time.40 Smith further notes that we need to evaluate human responses as to how the landscape is experienced rather than how it is observed, leading to a kind of cognitive mapping that has meaningful only when the grid becomes distorted and when the reality of experience begins to shape the reality of observation.41

34

Shakespeare, Coriolanus, act III, scene I, 190. Spinoza, A Theologico-political Treatise, 301. 36 Smith, “The Vienna Memorandum,” 70. 37 Ibid. 38 Turner, “Repositioning Urban Heritage,” 1-6. 39 “History does not repeat itself.” 40 Tuan, Space and Place, 233-41. 41 Smith, “The Vienna Memorandum,” 68. 35

28

M. Turner

Fig. 2.2 Referential analysis: an historic urban landscape approach. Drawing by Michael Turner from his 1981 sketchbook

This mapping may be expounded through a referential analysis which I had developed in 1981 and may be applied as part of the process in the historic urban landscape approach (Fig. 2.2). The analysis includes: (1) geomancy-tracings and visual axis, (2) landscape structure or geomorphology, (3) the landmarks, (4) the heritage and cultural layers, their context and setting, (5) the ceremonies and ritual of the intangible heritage, (6) the symbols and metaphors, and (7) identity and character. This brings us to the importance of extending our understanding of the meaning of attributes, including those of the urban and natural environments as well as the tangible and intangible heritages. Attributes were defined by Spinoza in his book on ethics, posthumously published in 1677: “for nothing in nature is more clear than that each and every entity must be conceived under some attribute…By attribute, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.”42 The attributes are an essential catalyst in defining the urban values and developing policies. One could also add that Spinoza’s approach to pantheism is the essence of linking nature and culture as embodied in the cultural landscape.

2.4 Looking Forward The next decade will need to employ a new taxonomy that will cross disciplines and engage the mechanisms relevant to each field, especially in applying culture as an enabler for sustainable urban development. Cultural heritage in the World Heritage Convention of 1972 is defined as monuments, groups of buildings and sites,43 with urban heritage being categorized by ICOMOS as a group of buildings. While a city 42 43

Spinoza, Ethics, 38. UNESCO, “Convention 1972,” art. 1.

2 Heritage and Conservation of the Historic Urban Landscape

29

may be defined as a group of buildings, it does not provide for the attributes of the very essence of a city, its streets and boulevards, its piazzas and courtyards, its human fabric including the tangible and intangible assets, its natural and cultural features, and all that constitutes the heart and soul of the city. Extending urbanism beyond a group of buildings underlines the need for urban attributes that reflect the values of the city. Towards this end, my proposal is to focus on three overlapping categories: “urban archaeology/remnant” being a site that provides exceptional evidence of the past within living cities or a site that illuminates our knowledge of urbanism; “urban area/fragment” being a site that, by its very nature, has developed and will continue to evolve under the influences of cultural, social, economic and environmental changes; and “urban form” being a site that demonstrates the planning or design concepts that have shaped and organized the city and remain evident. Individual archaeological monuments or building vestiges are usually not adequate to suggest the multiple successive functions of a city; remains of such a city should be preserved in their entirety or a series of areas with a functional and formal relationship together with their natural surroundings whenever possible. Miletus (Greece) or Fatehpur Sikri (India) are good examples. In the case of the urban archaeological remnants within or adjacent to contemporary urban areas, the interrelationships, including functional and social, need to be evaluated to ensure the compatibility of the parts. With regard to urban areas/fragments, we may take our cue from the world of linguistics where synchronic and diachronic heritage would be appropriate. Synchrony and diachrony are two different and complementary viewpoints in linguistic analysis. A synchronic approach considers a language at a moment in time without taking its history into account. Synchronic linguistics aims at describing a language at a specific point of time, usually the present. By contrast, a diachronic approach considers the development and evolution of a language through time. Historical linguistics is typically a diachronic study.44 The neighbourhood of the single period is synchronic while the layered urban environment is diachronic, responding to contemporary architecture in historic environments. The urban areas or fragments represent the development of the city as an everchanging mosaic. These areas can be understood as products of a specific period, function or culture which have been well preserved and have remained largely intact as subsequent developments proceed. This would be a synchronic heritage that is apparent in the works of John Wood in the city of Bath (United Kingdom) or the modern capital of Rabat (Morocco) based on the designs of Henri Prost and JeanClaude Forestier. Examples of urban areas that have evolved on a layered footprint and have preserved structures typical of the successive stages in their history overlapping until modern times will include the historic centre of Prague (Czech Republic) or the crossroads of culture of Samarkand (Uzbekistan). This includes cities that are complex multi-layered settlements often delineated by structures of different periods, whether existing or destroyed, that represent socio-historical urban patterns evolved through the centuries as a diachronic heritage. 44

De Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, 101.

30

M. Turner

The urban form can be considered as part of the urban heritage that is characterized through city planning or design concepts applied to the built environment shaped by humanity. These urban forms have been preserved as spatial arrangements typical of a stage or successive stages in their history, sometimes amid exceptional natural surroundings and cultural landscapes. The urban form will comprise the physical morphology including, inter alia, aspects like spatial organization, visual relationships, cityscape and skyscape, relationships of architecture and open spaces arranged as structures, streets, public areas, parks and canals. Palmanova (Italy), Manhattan (United States of America) and Brasilia (Brazil) are examples of how ideal cities and forms were an integral part of design since the start of urbanization. The application of a new language may assist in managing our cities and facilitate our efforts to address the challenges of urbanism in the coming decades. The Vienna Memorandum served its purpose to jump-start the debate and the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape paved the way for integrating the city’s assets beyond the historic centre or ensemble to include nature and culture as well as the tangible and intangible dimensions. The last word is given to Le Corbusier who, in considering the planning for tomorrow, gave room for the other and the next generations for a sustainable future, leaving a space “blank for a work expressing modern feeling.”45

2.5 Postscript January 2023 One of the challenges of the UN Decade of Action for the Sustainable Development Goals is the fact that a new metropolis will arise every two weeks in the next fifteen years for a total of 429 new metropolises.46 Following the spirit of the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape that states that the city extends beyond the notion of historic centre to include the broader urban context, the metropolis is more than a series of unsustainable urban fragments beyond the city. Temporal sustainability between generations is now supplemented with spatial sustainability between rural and urban in which the metropolis can offer a hinterland for recreation, livelihood, biodiversity and heritage. This spatial sustainability has become a necessity in the post COVID-19 era with provisions for immediate accessibility and availability of people, food and goods. Representing the human settlements typology with the largest population worldwide, metropolises will need to define a new approach capable of meeting the community needs of citizens, planners, designers and policymakers at the metropolitan scale beyond traditional hierarchies and governance. In response to this social transformation, a new approach known as heritopolis has arisen within the UN-Habitat MetroHub framework. Addressing the multiple social 45 46

Le Corbusier. The City of Tomorrow, 46. UN-Habitat, Global State of Metropolis 2020.

2 Heritage and Conservation of the Historic Urban Landscape

31

identities is crucial in the metropolitan context, with the recognition that heritage is a key component of this social identity. The space and time of the metropolis also allow us to address dissonant heritage and sustainable practices aimed at achieving resilient, safe and inclusive societies. With technologies that are rapidly shifting from centralized hierarchies to distributed networks, and with knowledge available in a complex relational pattern of networks, the capacity for empowering individuals rather than external hierarchies is increasing. This digital culture opens up vast opportunities for civil society to play a new role in identifying the past and generating future heritages. What remains is the need for relevance and constant updating of both traditional and innovative tools for adaptation to local contexts. These tools, which are essential as part of the process of involving different stakeholders, may include civic engagement, knowledge and planning, governance, and finance. Such tools would benefit from the applying of the triple-helix model for innovation in joining research, private sector and governance for sustainable development.47

Michael Turner architect and urbanist, is UNESCO Chairholder of Urban Design and Conservation Studies at the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design. He is a special envoy at UNESCO, applying the Historic Urban Landscape Recommendation and accompanying the Modern Heritage of Africa initiative. He is an active member of the UNHabitat Heritopolis UNI-MetroHub consortium, an advocate of the UNDRR Resilient Cities Program, and is one of the initiators of the global OurWorldHeritage network.

47

Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, “Triple Helix of Innovation,” 358-64.

Chapter 3

Tangible and Intangible Heritage: Two UNESCO Conventions Ahmed Skounti

Abstract Heritage production is one of the prominent features of our world. Conservation charters have been adopted and international organizations have been created. Heritage is today at the heart of the most diverse economic, political and diplomatic agendas. This chapter outlines a portrait of the two UNESCO conventions related to the protection of World Heritage (1972) and to the safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). The first normative instrument was visionary by putting together cultural heritage and natural heritage in the same international standard-setting document. A generation later, the second instrument introduced a paradigmatic reversal in the perception and management of heritage by placing all stakeholders, including local communities, inside the safeguarding process. The analysis reveals that the two conventions are two systems, each having its texts, its governing bodies, its secretariats, its advisory bodies and its satellite and non-state players. They seem to operate independently one from the other, but in reality, they rub shoulders with each other, influence each other and collaborate in diverse ways. However, the implementation of the two instruments is challenged by an unprecedented politicization that relegates to the background the conservation and safeguarding of inscribed sites and cultural practices. Keywords Heritage · Intangible Heritage · UNESCO · Conservation · Safeguarding · Politicization

3.1 Introduction Heritage production is intimately linked to “the acceleration of history.”1 For more than a century, an unprecedented sense of the inexorable flight of time has gradually taken hold of humanity. Evidence of the past has thus slowly begun to be perceived 1

Augé, Non-lieux, 40.

A. Skounti (B) Institut national des sciences de l’archéologie et du patrimoine, Rabat, Morocco e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Cameron (ed.), Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century, Creativity, Heritage and the City 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2_3

33

34

A. Skounti

as precious. Add to that a feeling of nostalgia that has not escaped the attention of a few authors2 as well as genuine interest. Voices therefore began to emerge to call for the protection and conservation of various vestiges that bear witness to the past. Against a background of reconstructions and restorations, the two world wars of the first half of the twentieth century exacerbated this feeling. Globalization and its corollary, standardization have led to both openness and withdrawal. Conservation charters have been adopted and international organizations have been created. Heritage is today at the heart of the most diverse economic, political and diplomatic agendas. The academic world, at first reluctant, has begun to examine the contours of this multifaceted notion. We no longer count the number of works dedicated to heritage nor the titles of specialized journals. The heritage process has become, in two decades, the beating heart of heritage studies around the world. In recent decades, UNESCO has played a key role in defining, expanding and disseminating the idea of heritage. During the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century, this United Nations organization set up a normative arsenal which covers most of what we consider today to be the field of heritage. From cultural heritage threatened by armed conflict (1954) to intangible cultural heritage (2003), including trafficking in cultural goods (1970), World Heritage (1972) and underwater heritage (2001), no less than five conventions on cultural and natural heritage have been adopted. In addition, there are several declarations and recommendations, the legal scope of which is more limited, but which nonetheless help to broaden the awareness-raising framework and encourage action. This chapter is particularly concerned with two of the UNESCO conventions cited above: the Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) and the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). It will first be a question of presenting what one might call the “World Heritage system” and the “Intangible Cultural Heritage system.” Then, the chapter will set out the similarities and differences that characterize the two normative instruments, at the same time so close and yet so far apart. In the case of the two conventions, the term “system” encompasses the mechanisms, entities, stakeholders and administrative, legal and financial procedures, at the national and international level, needed to implement each one. We can consider that both are part of a more global system, that of UNESCO’s conventions in the field of culture.3 This chapter draws on both the literature and the analysis of data available on both systems. It also benefits from the personal observations of the author, both as an expert and a delegate who sat on the intergovernmental committees of the two conventions for a cumulative total of more than two decades, including during the drafting of the 2003 Convention.

2 3

Herzfeld, L’intimité culturelle, 175; Appadurai, Modernity, 76–7; Berliner, “Nostalgie.” Francioni and Lenzerini, The 1972 World Heritage Convention, 409–10.

3 Tangible and Intangible Heritage: Two UNESCO Conventions

35

3.2 The World Heritage System A slow movement to conserve the built heritage and, more broadly, remnants of the past began after the First World War. It was followed by a similar movement that emerged after the Second World War for the conservation of nature. Several authors have retraced, separately or jointly, the development that led to the elaboration and then the adoption of the World Heritage Convention.4 The governing bodies of the World Heritage Convention are established by the text of the standard-setting instrument. They are presented and analyzed in detail by Cameron and Rössler.5 There are 194 States Parties, that is to say all of UNESCO’s Member States. They are organized within the General Assembly of States Parties which is held once every two years within the framework of the General Conference of UNESCO. In accordance with the convention, the General Assembly elects the members of the World Heritage Committee (art. 8.1) and determines a uniform percentage applicable to all States Parties as their contribution to the World Heritage Fund and not exceeding one per cent of their contribution to the regular budget of UNESCO (art. 16.1). The process of electing committee members led to the gradual transformation of the General Assembly into a veritable political arena caused by the growing number of States Parties, the limited seats on the committee and the difficult balance among electoral groups within it. The World Heritage Committee originates in the General Assembly by means of the vote. It is made up of twenty-one States Parties and meets once a year in ordinary session. It mainly deals with the inscription or removal of sites on or from the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger, the examination of the state of conservation of the sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, and the use of the resources in the World Heritage Fund. The politicization of the committee has increased over time.6 In principle, article 9.3 of the convention invites States Parties to choose “persons qualified in the field of cultural and natural heritage” to represent them. In actual fact, States Parties are often represented by diplomats who are more interested in international recognition and for whom accession to the World Heritage Convention is preceded by commitment to national and international alliances.7 It is difficult to strike a balance between demanding scientific and technical expertise on the one hand, and pursuing political interests on the other. It is not certain whether the committee has moved from being a technical body to a political one.8 As the convention is, in essence, an intergovernmental treaty, the committee as a central body for its implementation could not escape the political game, even at the beginning. Of course, there is general agreement that politicization has increased over time.9 4

Cameron and Rössler, Many Voices, 1–26; Titchen, “On the construction,” 12–24; Holdgate, The Green Web, 39–100. 5 Cameron and Rössler, Many Voices, 155–219. 6 Ibid., 165–74. 7 Brown et al., “The Politics,” 14. 8 Cameron and Rössler, Many Voices, 165. 9 Bertacchini et al., “The Politicization,” 95–129.

36

A. Skounti

This has been exacerbated by the nature of the treaty but also the establishment of a ceiling for the nominations examined each year, the increasing complexity of the nomination dossiers, as well as bilateral or regional disputes. The dialectic between state sovereignty and the prerogatives of the committee is an additional challenge with multiple legal implications.10 Another actor in the World Heritage system includes the advisory organizations. There are three of them, specifically named in the text of the convention: the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). Their function, under the terms of the convention, is to provide expertise and technical assistance in their respective fields of cultural and natural heritage. The first two are international NGOs that assess the nominations of natural and cultural sites while the third is an intergovernmental organization that supports UNESCO, particularly in the field of capacity building for cultural heritage. IUCN and ICOMOS have seen their advisory role evolve over the decades of implementing the convention. The results of their assessments have not always been appreciated by some States Parties. They are sometimes criticized for being too strict in their evaluations or for not being strict enough.11 The fact that the majority of the experts on which the two organizations rely in their respective evaluations are from Western countries leads certain representatives of States Parties to doubt their knowledge of the natural and cultural diversity of the world. This is what led the advisory bodies to clarify the evaluation procedures on the one hand, and on the other hand led the World Heritage Committee to adopt the Upstream Process in 2010 authorizing the advisory organizations to offer advice to States Parties before the preparation and submission of nominations.12 The UNESCO secretariat is another actor that makes up the World Heritage system. Until 1992, the science sector and the culture and communications sector of UNESCO were mandated by the organization to support the implementation of the convention. The method of financing and managing this mandate was not clear during this whole period.13 By 1991, this way of supporting the committee had reached its limits, and the following year the World Heritage Centre was established. Acting as the secretariat of the convention, it also supports fundraising, coordination with the advisory bodies, communication with States Parties and awareness-raising of the convention, among others. The Centre plays a central role in the implementation of the convention, its main concern always being the insufficiency of human and financial resources. The idea of a unified and qualified administrative and technical body on cultural and natural heritage issues, capable of effectively assisting the World Heritage Committee, has paid off.

10

Francioni and Lenzerini, The 1972 World Heritage Convention, 5–6. Cameron and Rössler, Many Voices, 196; UNESCO, World Heritage Oral Archives, Canada Research Chair, Touri. 12 UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2021,” par. 71, 122. 13 Cameron and Rössler, Many Voices, 202–03. 11

3 Tangible and Intangible Heritage: Two UNESCO Conventions

37

Fig. 3.1 Medina of Essaouira (formerly Mogador) World Heritage site, Morocco. Photograph from la Direction provinciale de la Culture d’Essaouira, Morocco

UNESCO category 2 centers linked to the 1972 Convention provide significant support for the implementation of the convention at local, national and regional levels. There are nine of them today, distributed as follows: three in Asia-Pacific, two in Europe, two in Latin America and the Caribbean, one in Africa and one in the Arab States. They help raise awareness, build capacity, raise funds and conserve World Heritage sites. Their contribution is assessed annually and is the subject of a regular item on the agenda of the World Heritage Committee14 (Fig. 3.1). It is therefore evident that the World Heritage system is a specific focus within UNESCO. As the flagship in the United Nations organization for the preservation of cultural and natural heritage, the system has now reached its maturity. While it is certainly thriving, it is not immune to crises and tensions which threaten its viability. One of the major tensions is the difficulty of reconciling the conservation imperative, that has become more demanding as the World Heritage List grows, on the one hand, and on the other hand the limited financial means that the World Heritage Fund can mobilize. Even more disturbing, the disruption of the fragile balance in favor of political interests and at the expense of expertise threatens to discredit the system. The transformation of the committee into a political arena where diplomatic competition prevails over technical expertise is a harbinger. This change, moreover, comes at a time when it must face a new situation, the deliberate destruction of World Heritage sites by terrorism.15

14 15

UNESCO, “Follow-up to the World Heritage Capacity Building strategy,” 1–11. Meskell, A Future in Ruins, 143–71.

38

A. Skounti

3.3 The Intangible Cultural Heritage System The identification, definition and recognition of Intangible Cultural Heritage materialized more than a generation after the adoption of the World Heritage Convention.16 The 1989 Recommendation for the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore17 was a first attempt to draw the attention of UNESCO Member States to the intangible side of the heritage of human societies. A decade later, the organization adopted the program for the Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity. It resulted in three proclamations (2001, 2003 and 2005) of 90 elements. Its non-binding nature and the controversial notion of “masterpiece,” among others, led to its abandonment with the adoption of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in 2003 and its entry into force in 2006. The transitional provisions of the convention (art. 31) integrated the 90 “masterpieces” into the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2008. The structure of the key players in the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention is slightly different from that of World Heritage. The 2003 Convention’s General Assembly of States Parties also meets once every two years. The sessions take place in June in even years and therefore outside the General Conference of UNESCO, making it a more powerful body than the General Assembly for the 1972 Convention. It also has more powers because, in addition to electing the members of the Intergovernmental Committee, it approves and can discuss and modify the amendments to the Operational Directives of the 2003 Convention.18 It also accredits non-governmental organizations proposed by the committee. The Intangible Cultural Heritage Committee is a central actor in the implementation of the convention at the international level. It is composed of twenty-four elected States Parties instead of the twenty-one members for the 1972 Convention. Like the latter, it struggles to find an equitable balance between expertise and political interests. It is evident that politicization is increasing from one year to the next. And this despite the fact that the States Parties are again asked to choose as their representatives “persons who are qualified in the various fields of the intangible cultural heritage” (art. 6.7). However, it is clear that diplomats are taking the upper hand in order to negotiate a maximum of political gains. The committee thus sometimes endorses behind-the-scenes negotiated decisions, especially with regard to listing. It also sometimes becomes, despite itself, the sounding board of bilateral disputes that use the committee as an alternative forum. Unlike the 1972 Convention that specifies the names of its advisory organizations, the 2003 Convention chose not to reproduce the same scheme. The process for evaluating applications for inclusion on the two lists, for selecting good safeguarding practices for the Register of article 18 and for granting international assistance changed during the first years of implementation. Between 2009 and 2014, a subsidiary body 16

Aikawa-Faure, “From the proclamation,” 27–9; Skounti, “The Authentic Illusion,” 76. UNESCO, “Recommendation on the safeguarding of traditional culture.” 18 UNESCO, “Operational Directives.” 17

3 Tangible and Intangible Heritage: Two UNESCO Conventions

39

chosen from the committee and composed of six of its twenty-four members was responsible for the evaluation of the nominations for inscription on the Representative List. Concerning the evaluation of nominations for inscription on the Urgent Safeguarding List, the selection for the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices and the granting of international assistance during the same period, the structure shifted from individual examiners to an advisory body composed of six independent experts and six accredited non-governmental organizations. Since 2014, a single evaluation body composed of six individual experts from States Parties not members of the committee and six representatives of accredited NGOs has been established by the committee. It is responsible for evaluating the nominations for the four mechanisms of the convention. It is an intermediate and consensual formula reflecting both the political and technical nature of the committee. Another actor in the Intangible Cultural Heritage system is represented by the UNESCO secretariat. From the start of the implementation of the convention, the Intangible Heritage Section was established. It played a key role in consolidating the convention, in particular by coordinating the preparation of the Operational Directives for the implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage after the entry into force of the standard-setting instrument in 2006. A series of international meetings of experts facilitated the completion of this document which is the equivalent of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Since 2010, the secretariat has implemented a capacity-building program which has proven to be effective, notably by making it possible to develop reference material, train an international network of facilitators and organize dozens of workshops worldwide. The Section, now known as the Living Heritage Entity, supports the governing bodies in implementing the convention internationally, advises States Parties, disseminates information related to intangible cultural heritage and maintains documentation related to the convention. One of the major concerns of the secretariat is, of course, the inadequacy of human resources with regard to the immensity of the work to be done. Accredited non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are an important player in the convention. Until 2022, 216 NGOs have received accreditation from the General Assembly based on proposals from the committee. NGOs are in contact with communities, groups and individuals at the local level. They participate in raising awareness about the convention and, more broadly, in safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage. When elected by the committee to sit on the Evaluation Body, they contribute to the implementation of the convention at the international level. As the majority of them are based in Europe, geographical distribution of accredited NGOs is a recurring concern. In addition, reflection is underway within the governing bodies on their role within the framework of the convention.19 It should, however, be recognized that their organization within an NGO-Intangible Cultural Heritage Forum contributes to the dissemination of information and safeguarding methods.

19

UNESCO, “Reflection on the role.”

40

A. Skounti

UNESCO category 2 Centres dedicated to intangible cultural heritage constitute another actor in the Intangible Cultural Heritage system. To date, eight centres have been approved by the General Conference: four in the Asia-Pacific region, one in Central and Eastern Europe, one in Latin America and the Caribbean, one in Africa, and one in the Arab states. They contribute to the promotion of safeguarding by focusing their efforts on different, often complementary, areas of intervention. The network of facilitators is another actor in the system. It was created in the wake of the capacity-building program launched by UNESCO in 2010. In a first list, sixty-five people with long experience of intangible cultural heritage were trained and received the title of facilitator in 2011. The number has grown since then with train-the-trainers initiatives organized in different regions. The network now has 145 facilitators. Work is also being carried out by UNESCO to clarify the vision, mission, objectives and criteria for belonging to the network. Facilitators are, in particular, asked to supervise training on the 2003 Convention, assess the needs of States and help them develop safeguarding policies (Fig. 3.2). The Intangible Cultural Heritage system, like the World Heritage system, is a specific system within UNESCO. It is in charge, on an international scale, of an area of cultural heritage that has long been left to the mercy of the profound transformations disrupting human societies in an age of exacerbated globalization. After more than fifteen years of implementation, the system has reached cruising speed. It has experienced a rate of ratifications that no other UNESCO convention has registered before. It is in the stabilization phase with regard to its procedures and the relationships among the actors that compose it. However, the Intangible Cultural Heritage system has certain weaknesses which need to be duly examined. The capacity of the governing bodies and the secretariat is reduced. The first impact was the capping

Fig. 3.2 Jemaa El Fna, intangible cultural heritage, also listed as Medina of Marrakesh World Heritage Site. Photograph from UNESCO, Jane Wright

3 Tangible and Intangible Heritage: Two UNESCO Conventions

41

of the number of applications examined each year. The possibility of advising and accompanying States Parties and communities is limited due to the lack of financial and human resources. On a broader level, the universality of the treaty is at stake since a dozen of UNESCO member states have not yet ratified it. Among them, some have reservations that must be addressed through on-going explanations and improved implementation. The capacity of the system needs to be strengthened so that States Parties and communities are supported and advised in their efforts on the ground.20

3.4 Similarities and Differences What about the similarities and differences that exist between the two systems? A comparison could prove interesting in the search for points of convergence and divergence likely to support a reflection on the possible coordination between the two conventions. Several studies have already been devoted to this question.21 Of course, an exhaustive comparison would go far beyond the scope of this chapter as well as the skills of its author. A few salient points will therefore be retained for the present analysis. The architecture of the two systems The institutional organization of the two systems is more convergent than divergent. As we have seen above, they are both structured around governing bodies, advisory organizations / bodies, a secretariat and satellite entities. The operation is almost similar with statutory meetings much the same in terms of frequency and agenda. Both secretariats are set up as specialized units. The satellite entities support the two systems within the limits defined by the two standard-setting instruments. All the same, two major differences deserve to be mentioned. The first relates to the prerogatives of the governing bodies. The World Heritage Convention limits the mandate of the General Assembly to electing members of the World Heritage Committee (art. 8) and defining the amount paid by States Parties to the World Heritage Fund (art. 16). Conversely, the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention assigns far greater powers to its General Assembly. It is a “sovereign body” (art. 4) which elects the members of the Intergovernmental Committee (art. 5), approves the use of the resources of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Fund and the Operational Directives (arts. 6, 7, 16, 17, 18, 25 and 26), accredits non-governmental organizations (art. 9) and examines the report submitted by the committee at each of its sessions (art. 30). Another difference is that the General Assembly of the 1972

20

Skounti, “The Intangible,” 74. Zalasinska, “Building Bridges,” 77–90; Herrmann, “Tracing change,” 25–35; Lenzerini, “Protecting the Tangible,” 141–60; Labadi, UNESCO Cultural Heritage, 127–46; Skounti and Tebbaa, De l’immatérialité, 45–65; Forrest, International Law, 20–7; Carducci, “The 1972 World Heritage Convention,” 363–76; Blake, “Relationship to 1972 World Heritage Convention,” 5–7.

21

42

A. Skounti

Convention is held during the UNESCO General Conference, while that of the 2003 Convention takes place independently of it. The second difference concerns the status and mandate of the advisory organizations. The World Heritage Convention specifically invites representatives from ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN to participate in its sessions “in an advisory capacity” (art. 8.3). Furthermore, the committee may call on these organizations for the “implementation of its programmes and projects” (art. 13.7). Conversely, the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention does not mention any advisory organization for fear of reproducing the World Heritage model. It attributes to the committee the power to establish “on a temporary basis, whatever ad hoc consultative bodies it deems necessary to carry out its task” (art. 8.3). It is precisely this article that has enabled the committee to establish the Evaluation Body in 2014. This body is responsible for evaluating nominations for inscription on the lists, the selection of projects, programs and activities to the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices, and the allocation of international assistance for requests of more than one hundred thousand dollars (USD). Unlike the World Heritage advisory bodies which are independent from the intergovernmental committee, the Evaluation Body in the 2003 Convention is only partially so since, in addition to the six members of accredited NGOs, it includes six experts representing States Parties not members of the committee. Distinction and protection versus representativity and safeguarding The central notion in the recognition of World Heritage is contained in the expression “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV). It is defined as follows: “cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for the present and future generations of all humanity.”22 Its application has proven to be most difficult due to the unwritten assumptions that underpin it, referred to by Laurajane Smith as the “authorized heritage discourse.”23 The Nara Document on Authenticity (1994), the emergence of the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention (2003) and the development of an anthropological discourse on heritage have, among other things, brought into question the definition the OUV and the legitimacy of the places from which it operates. There is nothing like it in the 2003 Convention which, if it had not abandoned the concept of “masterpiece” carried by the program of the same name which preceded it, would have found there an excellent parallel to this concept of OUV. It preferred the neutral and unpretentious notion of “intangible cultural heritage” and the notion of “representativity” added to the list defined in article 16. This is what makes Hilde Naurath say that the two conventions have established a “distinction between exceptional properties and representative customs.”24 At the same time, an intangible heritage discourse was born in the wake of the 2003 Convention.25 But where it is interesting to draw a comparison between the two texts lies, on the one hand, in the notions of OUV and “protection” with regard to World Heritage, and on the other 22

UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2021,” par. 49. Smith, Uses of Heritage, 85–192. 24 Naurath, “Looking for Values,” 121. 25 Schreiber, “Intangible Cultural Heritage,” 46–7. 23

3 Tangible and Intangible Heritage: Two UNESCO Conventions

43

Fig. 3.3 Rabat, Modern Capital and Historic City: a Shared Heritage, World Heritage site. Photograph from la Fondation pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel de Rabat, Morocco

hand with those of “representativity” and “ safeguarding” for intangible cultural heritage. In the first case, OUV constitutes a “distinction” in the sense of Bourdieu.26 The sites inscribed on the World Heritage List are particular in that their value reaches beyond the borders of the State on whose territory they are located to embrace wider horizons. As for protection, it consists of preserving the sites possessing both natural and anthropogenic attributes. Used in the very title of the 1972 Convention, protection is understood first of all to mean protection of the physical site, including the delimitation of the property and its buffer zone, before extending to its associated intangible aspects (Fig. 3.3). With regard to intangible cultural heritage, the concept that gained consensus when the 2003 Convention was drafted is representativity. The Representative List is therefore supposed to accommodate expressions, representations, practices, knowledge or skills deemed representative of the diversity of cultures. There is no hierarchy among the elements, those inscribed only illustrating the wealth and scope of the others. Of course, this declared egalitarianism is undermined by the politics of scale that introduce all kinds of biases at the levels of identification, appropriation and representation, among others.27 The candidacies of these elements are not exempt from nationalist aims or economic interests.28 As for the concept of safeguarding, it was preferred to the concept of protection because it seemed more dynamic, mirroring the intangible cultural heritage itself. It is not possible to ensure identical transmission of intangible cultural heritage in a disinterested and falsely neutral way; on the contrary, transmission affects the form and content, adapting them to new conditions in a complex process that the drafters of the convention have called “recreation” (art. 2.1). At the same time, one must recognize the difficulty, both legal and practical, of safeguarding living cultural practices through external intervention likely to

26

Bourdieu, Distinction. Kuutma, “The Politics of Scale.” 28 Askew, “The Magic List,” 19–44. 27

44

A. Skounti

make them lose their local dimension.29 In other words, the legal tensions linked for example to intellectual property and the economic tensions resulting from potential revenue generation are some of the many pitfalls on the road to safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage. The lists and the listing process Another area where the comparison seems instructive is the question of the lists as set out in the two conventions. From the outset, the founders of the 1972 Convention set down the principle of a “list of sites of outstanding universal value.”30 It was not the same for the 2003 Convention. The principle of listing was in fact considered the most controversial issue in the negotiation of the treaty in 2002–2003.31 The question was whether to reproduce the model of the World Heritage Convention, an approach that many delegations were reluctant to follow. At the same time, without one or more lists and a process of international recognition, the standard-setting instrument might not interest UNESCO Member States. There was also the issue of dealing with the ninety “masterpieces of the oral and intangible heritage of humanity” proclaimed by the program of the same name, after the entry into force of the convention. Two lists were therefore created: the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity (now Representative List) (art. 16) and the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding (now Urgent Safeguarding List) (art. 17).32 But while the World Heritage List and the List of World Heritage in Danger are directly linked to each other, the Representative List and the Urgent Safeguarding List are independent of each other. Indeed, a World Heritage site inscribed on the List in Danger already belongs to the World Heritage List. Its inscription on the List in Danger is the result of degradation that comes after its recognition by the international community. Conversely, the 2003 Convention sets up a Representative List of “healthy” elements to contribute to the visibility of intangible cultural heritage and an Urgent Safeguarding List for elements whose viability must be restored. In both systems, the capacities of the governing bodies, advisory bodies and the secretariat have reached their limits and a ceiling for nomination proposals and for the number of nominations to be examined each year has been adopted. In addition, the technical complexity (World Heritage) and practical challenges (Intangible Cultural Heritage) of preparing nomination files generate frustrations in the countries and among the communities concerned. In addition, listing is at the heart of the politicization discussed above. It is also sometimes a source of competition among States, relegating to the background the cooperation promoted by UNESCO.33

29

Lixinski, Intangible Cultural Heritage, 129. Cameron and Rössler, Many Voices, 28. 31 Hafstein, “Intangible Heritage as a List,” 97–101. 32 One should add the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices for which projects, programs and activities are selected in line with the principles of the Convention, art. 18. 33 Meskell, “The Rush to Inscribe,” 145–51. 30

3 Tangible and Intangible Heritage: Two UNESCO Conventions

45

Involvement and participation of communities The 1972 Convention makes the State Party the central interlocutor in its implementation. The specific consideration of communities comes rather late in this process. The current version of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention includes local communities among the partners in the management of a natural or cultural property. These are defined as follows: "Partners in the protection and conservation of World Heritage can be those individuals and other stakeholders, especially local communities, indigenous peoples, governmental, non-governmental and private organizations and owners who have an interest and involvement in the conservation and management of a World Heritage property.”34 The committee encourages States Parties to ensure the participation of actors, including local communities.35 If, as it appears, local communities that are directly or indirectly linked to a World Heritage site are taken into account in the text of the Operational Guidelines, it is up to the State Party to involve them or not in the management of a property. The situations are obviously very diverse, but the State Party remains the real player in management through its public institutions, its regulatory tools and its staff. When partial or total ownership by the community on the site is duly recognized, the State Party is obviously obliged to associate it, in one form or another, with the management of the property in question. But when the property has a different ownership regime (collective, public domain of the State, mixed, etc.), participation, if it exists, can take a completely different form. If one adds to this the use of the verb “encourage” in the guidelines, one realizes that the relationship with communities is ultimately an internal matter left to the discretion of States Parties. It is quite different for the 2003 Convention that places communities at the heart of the very definition of intangible cultural heritage.36 The convention emphasizes the involvement of “communities, groups and individuals” in the process of its implementation by States. At the same time, for lack of formal definitions, these three concepts cover very diverse realities. This diversity can be seen in the files for inscription of elements on the two lists: communities have an infinite variety of forms of organization, population density and spatial distribution. States and government institutions need to adopt new forms of action in the field of cultural heritage which were hitherto foreign to them and which will be difficult for them to implement. In particular, they are required to abandon administrative action based on decisions taken and applied from top to bottom, taking into account the preponderant place that communities occupy in the management and care of intangible cultural heritage.37 These are key players with whom government institutions must build partnerships. At the same time, it should also be recognized that community participation is a difficult 34

UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2019,” par. 40 (but also see par.12, 64, 90, 123 and annexes 3 and 4). 35 UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2021,” par. 12. 36 Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, “Intangible heritage,” 53; Blake, “Relationship to 1972 World Heritage Convention,” 45–6. 37 Adell et al., Between Imagined Communities, 7–24; Labadi, UNESCO Cultural Heritage, 132–40; Bortolotto, Le patrimoine culturel, 26.

46

A. Skounti

Fig. 3.4 Taskiwine Martial Dance of the Western High Atlas, Morocco. Photograph from l’Association Targa-Aide, Morocco

process to put in place in all contexts. The conditions of its implementation must be carefully considered so that they guarantee communities, groups and individuals the right to control the activities which concern their intangible cultural heritage. Identification and inventory The two conventions have provided for different mechanisms for the identification and inventory of the heritage concerned. The World Heritage Convention assigns to States Parties responsibility for the identification of the cultural and natural heritage existing on their territory (art. 3). They are also required to submit to the committee “an inventory of property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage…suitable for inclusion on the World Heritage List” (art. 11.1). This inventory is known as the Tentative List.38 The sites it contains are expected to be the focus of nominations submitted by the States Parties concerned. A property inscribed on the World Heritage List is automatically removed from the corresponding Tentative List (Fig. 3.4). The Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention also assigns responsibility to each State Party for identifying the heritage existing in its territory. Unlike the 1972 Convention, it sets out a condition, specifying that the identification and definition of intangible cultural heritage must be carried out “with the participation of communities, groups and relevant non-governmental organizations” (art. 11 (b)). In addition, each State Party draws up one or more inventories of the intangible cultural heritage present in its territory and updates it/them on a regular basis (art. 12.1). The nomination for inscription of an element on the two lists must prove that it appears on an inventory at the national level (criterion U5 for the Urgent Safeguarding List and criterion R5 for the Representative List). Finally, when submitting their periodic reports to the committee under article 29, each State Party must provide relevant information concerning these inventories (art. 12.2). It should be pointed out that the impact of World Heritage Tentative Lists on the protection of heritage sites existing in the territory of the States Parties is almost nil. 38

Information on tentative lists may be consulted on the Convention’s website: http://whc.unesco. org/en/tentativelists/.

3 Tangible and Intangible Heritage: Two UNESCO Conventions

47

At the same time, at the national level States Parties have not taken full advantage of the provisions of article 5 that calls for the protection of cultural and natural heritage in general, including that which is not inscribed on the World Heritage List39 or not included on the Tentative Lists. The same observation can be made of articles 11 and 12 of the 2003 Convention. The procedures that flow from it do not fully allow the inventory or inventories to be a means for safeguarding the intangible cultural heritage. Sources of expertise and consultation Another point of divergence between the two conventions relates to the expertise necessary for the two committees in the exercise of their work. As mentioned above, the 1972 Convention opted for three advisory bodies, namely ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN, to assist it in examining the nominations of natural, cultural or mixed sites submitted to it by the States Parties. These organizations also assist the committee in examining the state of conservation of inscribed properties, site monitoring, defining and implementing international assistance for sites, training and capacity-building, awareness-raising and dissemination of knowledge. In the case of the 2003 Convention, the process for defining sources of expertise to support the Intangible Cultural Heritage Committee in the exercise of its functions is different. It is useful to recall that, at the time of drafting this convention, some government delegates openly criticized the operation of the 1972 Convention because they considered that the advisory organizations had acquired real power there, although their opinion is, in the texts, perfectly advisory. This argument was invoked to call for wider consultation, involving the greatest number of experts, centers of expertise, research institutes and non-governmental organizations in the world. Unlike World Heritage where an abundant literature exists on issues of conservation, restoration, protection of tangible cultural and natural heritage, the field of intangible cultural heritage suffers from a crucial gap in terms of safeguarding as defined by Article 2.3 of the 2003 Convention. Consequently, the question of expertise is more acute. After a few years during which a hybrid consultation was followed, a medium solution was put in place to deal with the nominations and requests from States Parties. Since 2014, an evaluation body has assessed the nominations for inscription on the two lists, the selection for the Register of Good Safeguarding Practices as well as requests for international assistance of more than one hundred thousand dollars (USD). In short, evaluation raises the question of heritage values, whether natural or cultural, tangible or intangible. Where do these values reside? Are they intrinsic to the heritage under consideration or attributed by an external source? Who is empowered to do so? The literature of heritage studies has made it possible to advance reflection on this subject. The perception of heritage not as a “thing” but as a “cultural and social process” raises the question of values. In this regard, it is clear that the two conventions work differently. That of 1972 seems to place the identification and definition of values in the hands of experts from ICOMOS and IUCN. Upstream, this role falls to heritage professionals at the national level. The 2003 Convention attributes this role to communities, groups and individuals who recognize practices, 39

Carducci, “The 1972 World Heritage Convention,” 363–76.

48

A. Skounti

representations, expressions, knowledge and know-how as part of their heritage. Consequently, there can be no identification and definition of the values of this heritage without their participation. This change has resulted in a paradigm shift that continues to have consequences for the entire heritage process.40

3.5 Conclusion In this chapter, a portrait has been presented of the two UNESCO conventions related to the protection of World Heritage (1972) and to the safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). It opened with the broad outlines of each convention by showing that the first was visionary by putting together cultural heritage and natural heritage in the same international standard-setting instrument. A generation later, the second introduced a paradigmatic reversal in the perception and management of heritage. The analysis led to conceive of the two conventions as two systems, each having its texts, its governing bodies, its secretariats, its advisory bodies and its satellite players. They seem to operate independently one from the other, but in reality they rub shoulders with each other, influence each other and collaborate in diverse ways. Dialogue is necessary because the challenges of protection and safeguarding are complex and changing, with implications at international, national and local levels. A positive contagion between the two systems is already at work. The limits of this paper did not allow us to give examples, but practice merges material heritage into the intangible and vice versa. The awareness and the will to protect the sites, squares, monuments and objects associated with the elements of the intangible cultural heritage are encouraging signs. At the same time, the increasing attention paid to the preservation of the values and intangible elements associated with World Heritage is another. Consideration has been given to the collaboration to be initiated between World Heritage sites and elements of intangible cultural heritage existing in the same territory. If we add the growing need for the participation of local populations or communities in the decision-making processes concerning the sites and the elements found on their territory, we can measure the extent of the shift we are witnessing. It is to be hoped that the two systems will manage the challenges they face by learning from each other and collaborating on cross-cutting issues. The link between the national and the international level arises for the two treaties. Making protection and safeguarding an effective continuum from the local level to UNESCO seems to be a challenge. But if the tangible and intangible heritage recognized at the international level does not serve as a driver for a holistic approach to heritage at the local level, the credibility of the whole structure is threatened. Promoting a shared vision where universal principles coexist with local teachings is one way to avoid it. Still further, cooperation from all of UNESCO’s treaties in the field of heritage would make

40

Labadi, UNESCO Cultural Heritage, 31.

3 Tangible and Intangible Heritage: Two UNESCO Conventions

49

it possible to meet the unprecedented challenges for its management at the local, national and international levels.

3.6 Postscript January 2023 The pandemic of COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine have heavily impacted heritage conservation and safeguarding worldwide. The governing bodies had to meet virtually to ensure a minimum implementation. The state of conservation of World Heritage sites and the viability of Intangible Cultural Heritage elements are subject to excessive pressure. The threats and risks have intensified and worsened as never before by climate change. More structural concerns undermine the implementation of the World Heritage Convention and the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention. In a recent opinion piece, Jean-Louis Luxen, former ICOMOS Secretary General, sounds the alarm about the deviation of World Heritage from its original purpose. According to him, negligence taints the credibility of this international normative instrument.41 The author agrees with other observations that for some years the state of conservation of World Heritage sites has been neglected in the rush to inscribe new properties.42 Protection, the central concern of the World Heritage Convention, is no longer a priority. The motivation for listing sites is more commercial or nationalistic, leading the intergovernmental committee to overturn technical advice submitted for its consideration by the advisory bodies, ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM. Last but not least, some recent nominations are contested as they are associated with conflicts and dissonant memories. In 2022, when the convention marked its fiftieth anniversary, the World Heritage Committee could not meet because of the ongoing war in Ukraine. It missed a golden opportunity to reflect on the future of the World Heritage Convention. All things considered, the Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention is not in good shape either. The ills of its predecessor are already present. The state of the elements inscribed in the Urgent Safeguarding List is worrying, with only one element transferred so far to the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. The same rush to inscribe new elements dominates the overall implementation. Hyper-nationalism and over-commercialization are among the threats endangering intangible cultural heritage. Furthermore, the rate that recommendations of the Evaluation Body are overturned by the intergovernmental committee is ominously increasing. It is noteworthy that the 2003 convention will celebrate its twentieth anniversary in 2023. In the case of both conventions, growing politicization needs to be tackled seriously as their future is at stake.

41 42

Luxen, “Il faut revoir la Convention.” Meskell, “The Rush to Inscribe.”

50

A. Skounti

Ahmed Skounti is a Professor of anthropology and heritage at the National Institute of Archaeology and Heritage Sciences (INSAP), Morocco. He has worked with the UNESCO World Heritage Convention since 1998. He contributed to the drafting of the UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention and was chair of its Evaluation Body in 2015 and 2017. He is a member of the Scientific Board of the International Journal of Heritage Studies and the Association for Critical Heritage Studies.

Chapter 4

World Heritage: Defining and Protecting Important Views Kristal Buckley

Abstract This chapter reviews a decade of World Heritage decisions that raised questions about how “important views” are recognized, conserved, contested, and overlooked. Several prominent cases demonstrate some connecting threads and emerging debates, such as: the concepts of “visual integrity” and “setting;” the effectiveness and functions of buffer zones; the importance of movement and cultural context in defining “important views;” the development of landscape approaches to urban conservation; and, the challenges of managing heritage within dynamic cities and landscapes. Some of these cases have resulted in the delisting of properties from the World Heritage List, but in many others, there are everyday difficulties for developers, communities, and local decision makers about how “important views” should be understood and treated. Key questions about identifying, valuing and managing “important views” raised in 2008 remain largely unresolved in 2018, suggesting the continuing need for dialogue and the creation of new tools. Keywords Important views · Setting · Visual integrity · Heritage impact assessment · Urban heritage · Heritage protection

4.1 Introduction Several hallmarks of the series of Montreal Round Tables hosted by the Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage can be identified: their “around a table” format (as opposed to larger multi-streamed symposia); the interactions of students, practitioners and theoreticians in the cultural heritage fields; and the opportunity to learn about globally relevant issues from Canadian and North American perspectives. Another is that the theme chosen each year was determined organically from listening and participating in the discussions at the annual World Heritage Committee sessions that reflected challenges faced in many places beyond the specific bubble of World Heritage. Each year, the Round Table caught what was “in the wind,” K. Buckley (B) Heritage Specialist and ICOMOS World Heritage Advisor, Melbourne, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Cameron (ed.), Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century, Creativity, Heritage and the City 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2_4

51

52

K. Buckley

providing a space to reflect, critique and contribute. Accordingly, the Round Tables have aired emerging issues and concepts, and visited once-simple problems that have become increasingly complex, particularly when brought into the intensely charged multi-lateral space of World Heritage. The year 2008 fits this description well. It was oriented around the complexities of defining and protecting “important views.”1 In 2008, there had been some contentious World Heritage cases where new developments were seen to interrupt important views. The Round Table aimed to explore the ways in which World Heritage processes could ensure that important views are sustained. To go beyond the surface consideration of individual cases, the Round Table needed to better understand the idea of visual integrity—what it means, how to incorporate it into decisions about change, and how to know when it could be compromised by planned developments. This discussion also raised questions about the spatial “reach” of World Heritage designation and what is practicable, particularly within the dynamic contexts of urban areas and large-scale landscapes. The Round Table considered the social and physical construction of important views, their contribution as attributes of identified values, and possible ways to improve their protection. Speakers discussed the uses and limits of existing and new tools. Based on case studies from the World Heritage List and from Canadian and American historic places, there was discussion about how to assess the impacts of development on views, with a desire to build a common methodology and language. In particular, there was interest to understand the meaning of the phrase “important views” that had been added to the text on buffer zones in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention in 2005, without any clarifying guidance. This text has not been revised or further explained since that time: For the purposes of effective protection of the nominated property, a buffer zone is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restriction placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes [emphasis added] that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection. The area constituting the buffer zone should be determined in each case through appropriate mechanisms. Details on the size, characteristics and authorized uses of a buffer zone as well as a map indicating the precise boundaries of the property and its buffer zone, should be provided in the nomination.2

The Operational Guidelines also underline the importance of the “broader setting” of World Heritage properties which includes and extends beyond the buffer zone.3 The setting comprises both physical elements (natural and constructed), infrastructure and uses, as well as social and intangible aspects. “Views” are therefore not the 1 Cameron and Boucher, World Heritage: Defining and Protecting “Important Views.” The 2008 World Heritage Committee session was held later in the same year in Quebec City (Canada) chaired by Professor Cameron; and later the same year, the sixteenth ICOMOS General Assembly, was also held in Quebec. 2 UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2019,” par. 104. 3 Ibid., par. 112.

4 World Heritage: Defining and Protecting Important Views

53

same thing as the “setting,” although they are clearly inter-related and are sometimes conflated in discussions and assessments. In 2008, there was a sense that while these provisions offer the World Heritage Committee the ability to recognize the importance of certain views and provide protection for them, there was also a growing suite of cases where problems had arisen. In 2018, the final Montreal Round Table was held precisely ten years later, offering an ideal span of time for review. Were the issues still as pressing and complex as they had been in 2008 or had the interest in important views come and gone? Are these issues still discussed in the same way or has the dialogue been transformed? Has the work within and beyond the World Heritage system made any headway on resolving (or at least clarifying) these issues in the past decade? This chapter is oriented around these possibilities.4

4.2 Back to 2008 In her introduction to the 2008 Round Table, Christina Cameron touched on several cases before the World Heritage Committee at the time—predominantly European historic cities.5 In each of them, the World Heritage Committee expressed concerns about the impacts of the height and appearance of proposed new buildings on World Heritage properties, even in situations where the new development was located outside the property boundary or outside its buffer zone. UNESCO’s Lodovico Folin-Calabi reported to the Round Table that such cases had “increased dramatically” within the work of the World Heritage Committee since the 1990s;6 and Ron van Oers suggested that, while the dynamic challenges of conserving urban heritage were not new, the factors and conditions underlying urban development had “changed profoundly.”7 The dilemma posed was explained by Cameron: “These cases demonstrate that the World Heritage Committee is taking seriously the requirement from the Operational Guidelines to protect important views and settings around World Heritage sites. They do nonetheless raise a number of questions related to methodologies, predictability, jurisdiction, property rights and the balance between conservation and development.”8 The Round Table included both scholarly and technical contributions of breadth and depth. Key conclusions mostly focused on urban contexts and included: 4

I am grateful to the participants in the 2018 Round Table for the discussions on my presentation. I also acknowledge Steven Cooke, Richard Mackay, Susan Fayad, Gwenaelle Bourdin, Susan Denyer, Regina Durighello and Tim Badman for stimulating some of the ideas presented in this chapter. 5 These were Vienna, Cologne, London, Dresden, Riga, Vilnius, St Petersburg and Tallin. The non-European example was Isfahan in Iran. Other examples drawn from the meeting papers for 2008 include: Jerusalem, Cairo, Macao, Salzburg, Salamanca, Kiev, Liverpool, Bath, Edinburgh, Zanzibar, Galle, Prague, Bordeaux, Moscow, Quito, Istanbul, Kaesong and San Marino. 6 Folin-Calabi, “Cultural Landscape Approach,” 127. 7 van Oers, “Towards New International Guidelines,” 43. 8 Cameron, “How the World Heritage Committee,” 28.

54

K. Buckley

• The definition of “important views” is subjective and site-specific, and involves the viewpoint(s) and the view field. • The Western privileging of the “visual” is not universal, and ideas about views could be broadened to reflect a more fully embodied sense of place. • Movement changes the views, underlining the importance of entrances, routes, roads, and paths. • Existing international guidance texts (such as ICOMOS charters) are not especially helpful in this instance. • Designation processes (local, national, international) often neglect consideration of views, and statements of significance are generally fixed in a particular moment. • It is important to ask: Whose values do the views represent? How do heritage practices recognize and reflect cultural diversity? • Spatial planning systems are often too rigid and too reductive to be effective. • There are some sophisticated technological tools and techniques available, but there was caution about their widespread promulgation as they are culturally contingent and expensive, and the outcomes are variable. • The term “visual integrity” is becoming more common in the dialogue, but has been poorly defined. Operationalizing it in a consistent way is problematic. Cameron concluded that there could be no formulaic solutions, but that there was a need to shift the dialogue from “heritage conservation versus development” to “heritage conservation as part of development,” foreshadowing much of the debate yet to come in relation to the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.9

4.3 Fast Forward to 2018 In this section, I consider the period since 2008 in relation to the issues that were discussed. What happened in the intervening decade between these two Round Tables? Had new solutions emerged? Have some of the cases that were prominent in 2008 been resolved (and if so, how and how well)? Are important views still an issue? To see if the issues of important views were still a factor, I looked at documents on nominations and state of conservation presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2008 and 2018. Cultural heritage, natural heritage and mixed World Heritage properties were considered.10 Table 4.1 summarizes the data. 9

Cameron, “Conclusion 2008,” 234. See also Chap. 2 in this volume. This research captures in the English language versions of the relevant documents the following keywords: view, visual, scenery, scenic and setting. UNESCO, World Heritage Committee, thirtysecond session, documents on state of conservation and nominations, WHC-08/32.COM/7A, 7A Add, 7A Add2; 7B Add, 7B Add2, 7B Corr, Inf8B1, Inf8B1 Add, Inf8B1 Add2, Inf8B2. UNESCO, World Heritage Committee, forty-second session, documents on state of conservation and nominations, WHC/18/42.COM/7A, 7A Add, 7A Add2, 7A Add2 Corr, 7B, 7B Add, 7B Add2, Inf8B1,

10

4 World Heritage: Defining and Protecting Important Views

55

Table 4.1 World Heritage Committee consideration of “views” in reports on World Heritage danger listing, state of conservation and nominations (2008 and 2018). Table by Kristal Buckley based on World Heritage committee documents as indicated Year

Total

Cultural

Natural

Mixed

Important views mentioned

List of world heritage in danger a 2008

30

17

13

0

Total: 4 4 culture 0 natural 0 Mixed

2018

55

39

16

0

Total: 6 5 Culture 1 Natural 0 Mixed

State of conservation reportsb 2008

127

83

40

4

Total: 48 41 Cultural 5 Natural 2 Mixed

2018

100

60

33

7

Total: 18 13 Cultural 4 Natural 1 Mixed

Nominations to the world heritage list c 2008

46

34

12

0

Total: 36 30 Cultural 6 Natural 0 Mixed

2018

32

23

6

3

Total: 24 19 Cultural 3 Natural 2 Mixed

a

World Heritage Committee document: 2008: 7A, 7A Add, 7A Add2; 2018: 7A, 7A Add, 7A Add2, 7A Add2 Corr b World Heritage Committee documents: 2008: 7B, 7B Add, 7B Add2, 7B Corr; 2018: 7B, 7B Add, 7B Add2 c World Heritage Committee documents (2008 and 2018): Inf8B1, Inf8B1 Add, Inf8B1 Add2, Inf8B2. Papers associated with the evaluation of nominations have been included. Evaluations of Minor Boundary Modifications, name changes and revisions to Statements of Outstanding Universal Value within these documents have not been included

In 2007, 40% of the state of conservation reports for cultural properties reviewed by the World Heritage Committee “focused on potential negative impacts of urban development and regeneration projects,” many of which concerned the inclusion Inf8B1 Add, Inf8B1 Add2, Inf8B2. Papers associated with the evaluation of nominations have been included. Evaluations of minor boundary modifications, name changes and revisions to Statements of Outstanding Universal Value within these documents have not been included.

56

K. Buckley

of new large and very tall buildings or building complexes.11 In 2008, the relative workload within the World Heritage system of cases that mentioned impacts on “important views” formed nearly 50% of the cultural heritage files reviewed, but had declined in 2018 to around 20%. The proportion of cases raising issues of important views (or visual impacts) was greater in 2008 than in 2018; and throughout this ten-year period, most cases concerned cultural heritage properties rather than natural heritage or mixed properties. This is partly, but not entirely, explained by the disparity in the overall number in each of these categories. Several properties appeared in the data for both 2008 and 2018: for example, Vienna, Jerusalem, Liverpool and Istanbul. But a more startling observation is that the high number of cities that lie behind the figures in Table 4.1 suggests that many different cases are coming and going in the attention and concerns of the World Heritage Committee. This is therefore not an isolated or short-term issue. While there might have been an overall reduction in the proportion of cases that mention these issues, it seems that there is a steady supply of emerging cases. Issues associated with views and/or visual impacts are most likely to be reflected in discussions on the integrity of cultural properties, and commonly occur in relation to properties in urban settings. Issues arising about important views predominantly relate to new developments—tall buildings, road and bridge infrastructure and tourism-related facilities. In addition, the World Heritage Committee has increasingly proposed the use of Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) as a means of determining whether new developments and interventions in World Heritage properties are appropriate, sympathetic, enhancing or detrimental to their values (Table 4.1).

4.4 The Growing Case Book In 2018, the cases where views, important views or visual integrity are at issue are still too many to describe in this chapter. However, several of the cases demonstrate some common threads. Historic Centre of Vienna (Austria)12 The historic skyline of Vienna is specifically identified in its Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, underpinning and contributing to the authenticity and integrity of the World Heritage property. The 2008 Round Table noted that the proposed high-rise development that had caused Vienna to become a key case in this discussion had been resolved, and that the influential text known as the Vienna Memorandum had been drawn up in 2005.13 Therefore, in 2008, Vienna was discussed in the past tense, demonstrating the effectiveness of the World Heritage brand in bringing various protagonists to the negotiating table and providing the needed political capital to avert significant impacts. 11

Van Oers, “Towards New International Guidelines,” 44. UNESCO, “Historic Centre of Vienna.” 13 UNESCO, “Vienna Memorandum;” see also Folin-Calabi, “Cultural Landscape Approach,” 123– 34. 12

4 World Heritage: Defining and Protecting Important Views

57

However, by 2018, Vienna was again a focus of concern. It was included in the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2017 due to changes in the regulatory regime for development approvals at the local level that eased height controls, as well as specific concerns about another large and tall development within the property boundary (the Vienna Ice-Skating Club—Intercontinental Hotel—Vienna Konzerthaus). The latter is a complex case, but it turns substantially on the importance of the views of and within the property and its skyline, and underscores the importance of identifying important views in heritage citations. Danger listing has occurred in part because of foreseeable development responses to the introduction of new and more flexible regulations. Height controls can be a relatively blunt tool for ensuring good design outcomes, but can allow important views to be sustained. The current issues for Vienna also demonstrate the importance of formal protection mechanisms at the local level, since the municipal government is typically the level where the approval of new projects occurs. Upper Middle Rhine Valley (Germany)14 The World Heritage inscription of the Upper Middle Rhine Valley comprises a sixty-five-kilometer stretch of the Rhine Valley, known for its scenic qualities associated with Romanticism and the work of writers, composers and artists. While the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value recognizes these elements, it also focuses on transportation histories and communications corridors. Since 2009, the property has been the subject of state of conservation discussions by the World Heritage Committee every two years, due to the potential impacts of a number of proposed developments, including new road crossings and the placement of wind turbines. It is in this context that many people who know the landscape well have expressed dismay that its character might be eroded by these various modern pragmatic developments. This case is of interest because it is not urban, like so many others that have been invoked in this discussion over the past decade, but neither is it an especially “pristine” natural landscape. It is also notable because there was a concern that the potential impacts of the proposed developments were somehow more than visual, although this is difficult to articulate in terms that are typically taken into account in World Heritage decision making. The mythical, musical and literary associations with the siren story of the Lorelei (a steep rocky bank on the Rhine) were sometimes mentioned in the discussions.15 (Fig. 4.1). Reactions against the development proposals varied, but seemed to be focused on the whole landscape and its sense of place, a clear challenge for the State Party and local authorities to factor into decisions about change. The placement and design of infrastructure for energy, transportation and communication are crucial, but evaluation of the impacts is contested. In addition, tourism development is a growing pressure (and opportunity) for many localities worldwide as people seek to build their economic security on the distinctive qualities of their natural and cultural heritage. The 2019 state of conservation report for this property mentions that the wind farm project has been withdrawn, but that planning for a permanent river crossing had recommenced, and that resort and cable car proposals 14 15

UNESCO, “Upper Middle Rhine Valley.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Lorelei.”

58

K. Buckley

Fig. 4.1 View of the Rhine River Valley at the Lorelei (left). Photograph from Pixaday, Konstantin Arzumanidis. Nineteenth-century image of the siren Lorelei (right). Image from Wikimeadia commons, Heinrich Pröhle, Lichtdruckbilder von Louis H. E. Schmidt (1886)

were also under consideration.16 It is therefore not yet clear how the values of the Upper Middle Rhine Valley—both visual and intangible—can be reconciled with proposed developments over a large area with mixed historical and current uses. Cathedral, Alcázar and Archivo de Indias in Seville (Spain)17 The commencement of the construction of Seville’s Torre Cajasol—often referred to as the Pelli Tower after its internationally esteemed architect, César Pelli—caused the historic landscape of the city’s World Heritage site to be placed on the World Monuments Fund’s Watch List in 2010.18 The tallest building in Seville, it was completed in 2015 despite several calls by the World Heritage Committee to halt its development. By 2012, the building was a fait accompli, and an ICOMOS Advisory Mission reported that the tower has a highly negative visual impact on the setting of the World Heritage property, including its urban context and relationship with the river. Recommended actions aimed at avoiding a recurrence.19 (Fig. 4.2). The tower was built well outside the World Heritage property, across the river from the inscribed monuments on three major sites—the Cathedral, Alcazár and Archivo de Indias. When inscribed in 1987, no buffer zone was created, although one was established in 2010 in response to disputes about the proposed new tower. Construction of tall buildings accelerated throughout the world from the 1990s,20 alongside increasing interest by city governments to invite new work by highly regarded architects that could become icons, landmarks or statements of modernity, assisting cities 16

UNESCO, “World Heritage Committee, forty-third session,” state of conservation report, WHC/19/43.COM/7B.83. 17 UNESCO, “Cathedral, Alcázar and Archivo de Indias in Seville.” 18 World Monuments Fund, “Historic Landscape of Sevilla.” 19 UNESCO, “World Heritage Committee, thirty-sixth session,” state of conservation report, WHC12/36.COM/7B.88. 20 Lardinois, “Contemporary Architecture in the Historic Environment,” 266.

4 World Heritage: Defining and Protecting Important Views

59

Fig. 4.2 The Torre Cajasol, Seville, designed by architect César Pelli. Photograph from Pixabay, José Carranco Castillo

to enhance their distinctiveness and competitive advantages (sometimes called the “Bilbao effect”). These buildings are typically very tall and visually prominent. By definition and intention, they create a deliberate contrast to the historic urban fabric and morphology.21 Seville’s Torre Cajasol is certainly an abrupt insertion within its urban context, but for the purposes of considering important views, it raises questions about whether it is feasible to protect views that are some distance beyond the boundary determined by the inscription of a property. How far away is far enough? How important is it to prevent this kind of change? Does the presence of this building within the view field somehow impair the appreciation and transmission of the values of these historical complexes? Is it even possible to contemplate the inclusion of tall and modern interventions in or within sight of older urban areas? Dresden Elbe Valley (Germany)22 The Pelli Tower also revealed an increasingly common disconnect between the interests of the international and national authorities on the one hand and local governments on the other. These replay similarly in many cases, but none so dramatically as in the case of Dresden in Germany. Many accounts have been written23 and almost every critique of World Heritage written since 2009 makes at least brief mention of Dresden Elbe Valley which became the first World Heritage property to be delisted against the wishes of the State Party. Year after year, the World Heritage Committee had tracked the progress for planning and constructing the Waldschlösschen Bridge, as well as information about the needs of local citizens and the efforts of the German State to find alternative solutions. Each year, the 21

van Oers, “Towards New International Guidelines,” 47. UNESCO, “Dresden Elbe Valley.” 23 Schoch, “Whose World Heritage,” 199–223; Gaillard and Rodwell, “A Failure of Process,” 16–40; Rodwell and Turner, “Impact Assessments,” 58–71. 22

60

K. Buckley

Fig. 4.3 The Waldschlösschen Bridge, Dresden Elbe Valley, Germany. Construction of the bridge led to the deletion of the property from the World Heritage List in 2009. Photograph from Pixabay, Cornell Frühauf

urgings and warnings of the World Heritage Committee escalated until 2009, when the delisting occurred. The bridge was completed in 2013 (Fig. 4.3). This example has therefore transcended the specific circumstances of Dresden to become strongly symbolic within World Heritage, standing as a warning to local decision makers about what could happen if World Heritage commitments are not upheld. In terms of the focus of this chapter, the perceived impacts of the bridge were only partially understood as visual, since there was a focus on the landscape character of the Elbe River valley. Although the people of Dresden were in favor of the proposed bridge, it was not clear how they perceived their heritage through this saga, and whether the views affected by the new bridge were important to them. The outcomes of delisting for Dresden’s heritage on the priorities of its citizens are not easily assessed. At the very least the case demonstrates that the protection of important views is not always a matter of height controls alone. It also reveals the weakness of World Heritage protection if there is a misalignment with the values and needs of local people. The threat of delisting is a blunt instrument for protection.

4.5 Is There Better Guidance for Protecting Important Views? In the past decade, there has been further development of guidance to owners, developers, communities and decision makers, indicating the level of social and political disquiet that concerns about important views can generate. Between 2010 and 2014,

4 World Heritage: Defining and Protecting Important Views

61

World Heritage Resource Manuals were published to assist national authorities and site managers with the processes of World Heritage nomination and management.24 These mention issues associated with important views (particularly in relation to the establishment, protection and management of property boundaries and buffer zones), but fall short of providing specific guidance about what to do. The text on important views in the Operational Guidelines has not been revised since 2005. However, other changes that have occurred over the past decade are relevant. For example, the process of retrospectively establishing Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties has now been completed, establishing baseline statements of values for the majority of World Heritage properties. However, the inclusion of important views in these statements is likely to be patchy at best, since they have been tailored to imitate the moment of inscription, relying on the often-skimpy records of discussions at that time. Therefore the limits of statements of significance and the tendency for value statements to be fixed in time continue to be relevant and troubling. Heritage protection requires the recognition of values by present-day societies and cultural groups.25 While continuity of values is a focus of World Heritage protection, it is simply not feasible to lock up value statements for such lengthy periods, even if heavily reliant on scientific or other specialist forms of knowledge. In his review of older international texts, François LeBlanc found few mentions of important views in relation to the values/attributes of heritage places, or in the tools for management, although the platform for doing so was evident.26 Both the Venice Charter27 and the Washington Charter28 had identified the importance of the “setting,” which was then given focused attention in the Xi’an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas.29 Setting has therefore been a recognizable part of the agenda, but the 2008 conclusions about the pressing need for workable methods and tools remain valid. The Washington Charter has been augmented by the adoption of the Valletta Principles for the Safeguarding and Management of Historic Cities, Towns and Urban Areas,30 which brings into more overt recognition many of the issues raised in 2008. Its use of the term “safeguarding” is significant as it reflects the emergence and adoption of terminology developed internationally for intangible cultural heritage.31 The Valletta Principles emphasize the relevance of sustainable development, gentrification/migration, shocks due to weather extremes and financial crises, and the 24

UNESCO, “Resource Manuals.” Avrami and Mason, “Mapping the Issue,” 8–33. 26 LeBlanc, “Do Conservation charters protect important views?” 44–53; see also van Oers, “Towards New International Guidelines.” 27 ICOMOS, “International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments.” 28 ICOMOS, “Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns.” 29 ICOMOS, “Xi’an Declaration.” 30 ICOMOS, “Valletta Principles.” 31 UNESCO, “Convention 2003,” complements and stands alongside the World Heritage Convention in the international cultural heritage field. See also Chap. 3 in this volume. 25

62

K. Buckley

commercial imperatives of globalization. Change is central to the document overall, and, in addition to a clear definition of setting, other aspects like panoramas, skylines and view lines are listed amongst the tangible components of urban heritage. Issues concerning the pace of change are recognized, and interventions are considered in relation to their quality and quantity, coherence, balance and compatibility. The document also suggests that the visual effects of contemporary architecture should be carefully modelled and understood during the planning stages. Guidance from English Heritage (now Historic England) published as Seeing the History in the View32 advocates a qualitative assessment method, but also articulates its use in codified national policies and approval processes administered by local authorities. Seasonal and night-time views, as well as the experience of moving through an area, are recognized. The organization’s guidance on considering the setting in planning processes establishes the important premise that assessments should look for both enhancements and impacts, taking cumulative changes into account. Buffer zones are often assumed to be the primary tool by which important views of, into and from World Heritage properties are protected. Yet, the purposes of buffer zones and the ways in which protection should be applied to them are often confusing for communities, proponents and decision makers. To address these matters, in 2008 there was a World Heritage expert meeting on buffer zones.33 Although ten years have passed, issues of buffer zones are no less pressing. A possible structural reason for continuing difficulties is that buffer zones are not always part of everyday heritage mechanisms (or urban planning practices) and are not applied until an area is proposed for World Heritage inscription. Buffer zones are expected to perform a complex range of functions to support the protection of World Heritage properties, and developments within and outside buffer zones continue to be problematic. In many cases, local authorities do not readily understand how buffer zones support the Outstanding Universal Value of properties. This lack of understanding has been identified as a common problem in Heritage Impact Assessments reviewed for the World Heritage Committee. ICOMOS has also raised this as an important emerging issue in its evaluations of World Heritage nominations, suggesting the need for further work.34 Not all skylines are significant, and new buildings are needed for the well-being of residents and visitors. As a response to tensions between new architecture and historic city centres, the 2005 Vienna Memorandum was a recent talking point in 2008 and the subsequent adoption of the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) in 201135 has opened a potentially important area of new work. Introducing ideas of the “limits of acceptable change,” and looking for synergies between heritage and development, the HUL recommendation has been a source of creativity and a spur for participatory planning since that time. 32

English Heritage, Seeing the History. Turner, “Protecting Important Views,” 32–43; Martin and Piatta, World Heritage and Buffer Zones. 34 ICOMOS, 2019 Evaluations, 4. 35 UNESCO, “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.” See Chap. 2 in this volume. 33

4 World Heritage: Defining and Protecting Important Views

63

4.6 Integrity and Visual Integrity Among the major revisions to the Operational Guidelines in 2005, the “test” or “qualifying condition” of integrity was applied to both natural and cultural heritage properties (not just natural heritage as had been the case previously). Integrity— meaning in general terms the intactness, completeness or wholeness of the property in relation to its values—had been in common use, and its parameters are clearly set out for natural heritage. However, for cultural heritage there is less clarity of definition or guidance, and in 2008, the term “visual integrity” was particularly contentious.36 Following discussions about integrity in 2009 and 2011, the World Heritage Committee requested that an expert meeting be organized to address the cultural heritage dimensions of integrity, including the dynamic interplay between the requirements for authenticity and integrity. This meeting took place in Al Ain (UAE) in March 2012.37 Participants discussed three dimensions of integrity for cultural heritage: visual, functional and structural integrity. They also looked at the application of these across several types of World Heritage property (urban areas, monuments/groups of buildings, archaeological sites and cultural landscapes). To an extent, this typological delineation mirrors the texts concerning natural heritage properties that itemize characteristics of integrity for each of the inscription criteria for natural heritage ((vii)–(x)).38 It is challenging to craft definitions and requirements that are relevant and useful for the conservation of natural and cultural heritage across the diversity of global approaches. The current conceptualization of integrity for both natural and cultural heritage has three specific requirements: the inclusion of all elements (or attributes) necessary to express the Outstanding Universal Value; adequate size; and an absence of adverse impacts of development or neglect.39 The application of integrity in nominations to the World Heritage List involves precision in the justification of boundaries, the identification of the attributes that can express the determined values, and the importance of the state of conservation and mitigation of key threats and pressures affecting the property. In the consideration of state of conservation issues, integrity is an essential basis on which the severity of pressures is assessed, and key to the corrective measures devised for properties to be removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger. However, the more specific suggestions from the Al Ain meeting have not been formally adopted and, despite its common currency, the term “visual integrity” is still without an agreed definition.

36

Stovel, “Effective Use,” 1–16. UNESCO, “Report on the International Expert Meeting on Integrity.” 38 UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2019,” par. 90–5. 39 Ibid., par. 88. 37

64

K. Buckley

4.7 Naturecultures40 While the consideration of pressures on important views has necessarily focused on urban contexts, bringing in other kinds of World Heritage properties—such as rural landscapes and other large area-based designations—might enhance our efforts. The contrasts and potential crossovers with natural heritage methods and issues were not considered in 2008; however, the 2014 Montreal Round Table explored the cultural value of nature41 and in 2018, naturecultures was an active topic of inquiry within World Heritage and heritage practices generally.42 It is surprising that in Table 4.1 relatively few natural properties reviewed by the World Heritage Committee in 2008 or 2018 referred to views, impacts on views, or scenic values, even though one of the natural criteria—criterion (vii)—is the only one for natural or cultural heritage that explicitly mentions the aesthetic experience of place. To meet criterion (vii), a nominated property must “contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance.”43 In 2013 Nora Mitchell completed a study for IUCN on the application of criterion (vii). Looking back through four decades of inscriptions revealed inconsistencies and confusion about how this criterion should be used, particularly as the text consists of two different dimensions (superlative natural phenomena and natural beauty/aesthetic importance) which are potentially understood and measured differently. Mitchell found that ongoing challenges included the ways in which “superlative natural phenomena” should be objectively measured, and how to introduce systematic, rigorous and transparent assessment methods for “natural beauty and aesthetic importance.”44 For existing properties inscribed under criterion (vii) it is not always easy to tell whether one or both of these dimensions has been recognized. Critics point to the contradiction of making culturally-derived judgements about aesthetics or beauty within the positivist forms of scientific measurement preferred by IUCN.45 A common-sense understanding of aesthetics suggests a dimension of value that could in principle be more broadly applied. While the ICOMOS contribution to Mitchell’s study found that the aesthetic importance of cultural heritage properties can be sufficiently recognized via the existing cultural criteria, others have canvassed the possibility of some shared criteria that could helpfully blur the boundaries between natural and cultural heritage.46 Work on the evaluation of aesthetics within heritage evaluation frameworks has also highlighted the cultural variability 40

A deliberate attempt to “collapse the dichotomy” of nature and culture, this term emerged in cultural geography, anthropology and environmental humanities, and is increasingly used in natural and cultural heritage management. Latimer and Miele, “Naturecultures?” 41 See Chap. 10 in this volume. 42 Harrison, “Beyond ‘Natural’ and ‘Cultural’ Heritage,” 24–42; Brockwell et al., Transcending the Culture-Nature Divide; IUCN and ICOMOS, Connecting Practice. 43 UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2019,” par. 77. 44 Mitchell, “Study on the Application of Criterion VII.” 45 ICOMOS-IFLA, “Contemporary Issues.” 46 Leitão and Badman, “Opportunities,” 75–92.

4 World Heritage: Defining and Protecting Important Views

65

Fig. 4.4 The rapid growth in cruise ship arrivals in historic port cities like Valletta, Malta can dramatically affect important views and the experience of place for local communities and visitors alike. The massive size of cruise vessels can overwhelm the scale of the historic buildings. Photograph from Pixabay, Wizartmedia

of aesthetic experience as more than visual (see for example work on the aesthetic values of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef).47

4.8 Summing Up the Past Decade Looking back over the past ten years, progress in relation to the protection of important views is mixed. Certainly, the ideal imagined in 2008—of a shared language and assessment method—has not been achieved. The case book has some continuing and emerging examples, demonstrating an ongoing relevance of this subject. The fast pace of change in many parts of the world has created instances where the impacts on important views (or visual integrity) potentially occur through the design and construction of very tall buildings/complexes that create a sharp contrast or rupture with the existing urban texture and morphology. Perhaps more challenging, impacts arise through the need for more efficient infrastructure for energy and transportation to support the quality of urban life worldwide. The impacts of mass tourism have also created growing pressures on the integrity, liveability and sustainability of many World Heritage cities (Fig. 4.4). Some of the cases discussed in 2008 were still contentious in 2018, an exhausting decade with high stakes argumentation and analysis for all local actors. However, 47

Pocock, “Sense Matters,” 365–81; Johnston and Smith, “Beautiful One Day,” 54–71.

66

K. Buckley

there are also signs for optimism, made possible by improved processes and ongoing dialogue.

4.9 Looking Ahead: Pathways to Better Practices and Outcomes There is a brief opportunity to look ahead to identify the points of movement that could deliver improved outcomes for the recognition of important views, for understanding why and how they are important (and to whom), and for effectively including them in decisions about change. These points of movement appear in interrelated clusters of engagement and action that aim to create better practices, guidance and tools, and in learning spaces that enhance the subjective and experiential dimensions of heritage. The present is characterized by large transformations driven by sustainability imperatives, increasing urbanization, globalized capital flows, new technological possibilities and geo-political tensions. Orientation of heritage practices around the preservation of authentic (or “original”) fabric alone creates a binary between heritage and change that the HUL approach tries to avoid. Expanded notions of what heritage is and emerging methods of participation in the elicitation of values have accompanied these transformations, alongside renewed interest in the localization of universal approaches. Better tools for understanding the impacts of change are also part of this present. IUCN, ICCROM and ICOMOS are currently working to improve and clarify their requirements for impact assessments for World Heritage properties, including their interface with planning systems at the local and national levels.48 While processes for environmental impact assessment (EIA), heritage impact assessment (HIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) remain distinct, this work aims for a shared conceptual approach to assessment of the impacts of change on World Heritage properties, facilitating some improvement in the identification and protection of important views. Likewise, the implementation and localization of the HUL Guidebook provide a means of understanding urban areas in terms of the historic layering of cultural and natural values and attributes, extending beyond the notion of historic centre to include the entire broad urban context and its geographical setting.49 A number of strands in the discussions in 2008 and 2018 have challenged the unthinking focus and the privileging of the visual and its Eurocentric origins. This viewpoint was most clearly articulated in 2008 by Julian Smith who contrasted the views of the eye, the body and the soul. In a similar vein, four dimensions or tensions of landscape are discussed by John Wylie.50 Smith explains: 48

ICCROM, “World Heritage Leadership.” WHITRAP and City of Ballarat, The HUL Guidebook; Roders and Bandarin, Reshaping Urban Conservation. 50 Wylie, Landscape. The four dimensions are between proximity and distance; between observation and inhabitation; between the eye and the land; and between nature and culture. 49

4 World Heritage: Defining and Protecting Important Views

67

The view of the eye is often assumed to be the controlling view, but the dominance of this way of looking can be traced to specific European developments…and to broader ties between the subsequent development of landscape painting and the rise of colonialism…. The view of the body is the perspective of the traveler and suggests an approach to view protection rooted in understandings of both ritual and artifact. Its modes of representation are more complex, and involve all five senses. The view of the soul is the view acquired over time by the inhabitant…. Ultimately this is the view most important to the survival of a historic place.51

Theory in cultural geography has much to offer this discussion, broadening the ways we might think about views. Smith’s view of the body highlights the importance of viewing while moving, in contrast to the conventionally static view of landscape painting or photography (or the visual cone modelling now used in urban planning approvals). In his presentation to the 2008 Round Table, Gerry McGeough described work on a view protection policy for Vancouver that, in addition to modelling skyline profiles to identify where best to insert new tall buildings, provides guidelines for bridgeheads and crossings, recognizing the experience of movement as well as the protection of views.52 New technologies have made the experience of travelling potentially available to research and heritage practices, but practical applications are still at a relatively experimental stage. As a small example, in Ballarat East (Australia), research led by Steven Cooke used walking methods and visual research methods to better recognize valued but subtle aspects of the urban texture.53 This research was informed by the contrast drawn by Yi-Fu Tuan between “surface” and “depth” (or “core”), arguing that while scholars privilege depth, the sensory experiences of the surface are also important.54 The Eurocentric framing of World Heritage (and by extension, many other national systems for heritage designation) is commonly acknowledged, but needs to be more explicitly applied to the identification and protection of important views. As noted earlier, there is a growing call to develop natural and cultural heritage practices that work at a landscape scale, and there are synergies between this imperative and the consideration of important views and their protection. Broadening perceptions about how places and their settings are viewed, questioning the power differentials embedded in whose views are considered important, and embracing the cultural diversity that informs the application of value to views are therefore continuing challenges. Yet it is also true that the visual dimension remains a pressing matter, particularly in urban environments where the visual impacts of rapid transformations in architectural scale are a common concern. Transformations to and around heritage places are also complemented by change over time to heritage values themselves, even in relation to relatively new elements and views. At the 2008 Round Table, Sue Cole discussed changing community values 51

Smith, “Cognitive Mapping,” 113. McGeough, “Vancouver Tall Buildings,” 160–9. 53 Cooke and Buckley, “New Methodologies,” 166–80. 54 Tuan, “Surface Phenomena,” 233–41. 52

68

K. Buckley

Fig. 4.5 Completed in 2003, London’s “gherkin” was designed by Foster + Partners, and won the Royal Institute of British Architects Stirling Prize for excellence in architecture in 2004. The design was required to take into account protected sight lines to St. Paul’s Cathedral. Photograph from Pixabay, Steve Bidmead

associated with London’s high-rise building known as “the gherkin”55 (Fig. 4.5). Part of the boom in very tall buildings causing dramatic changes to London’s skyline over the past twenty years, the gherkin has become a landmark and attraction in its own right, and is today vanishing from view as still-taller buildings are erected. This demonstrates that community values—even about the relative merits of new objects in the urban landscape—are mutable and that there needs to be room in heritage practice for new and emerging significances. However, it can be difficult for heritage designations to reflect such changes. Statements of significance are fundamental tools in heritage conservation, setting out which values are intended to be kept. But these can have the effect of preventing the continuation of processes of renewal, replacement, invention and transformation. We frequently say that we are not intending to freeze (or museumize) places in an idealized notion of “pastness.” Nor are we intending to stymie innovation, nor uncaring about community aspirations and needs. But the available tools are not yet up to this challenge. Not all views are important, and importance can be differently ascribed, especially by the immense, diverse and changing communities of citizens and visitors that inhabit large cities. Speaking about authenticity, Sophia Labadi refers to an accepted fiction in heritage conservation that suggests that sites have remained in their original state and form since they were built.56 This suggests an equally important need to examine accepted 55 56

Cameron and Boucher, World Heritage: Defining and Protecting “ Important Views,” 193. Labadi, “World Heritage,” 66–84.

4 World Heritage: Defining and Protecting Important Views

69

fictions and assumptions concerning the conceptual framing and operationalizing of integrity, and the means of protecting important views. There is a need to find better ways of working out which are the important views, based on methods that provide better clarity about their specific values and about who is empowered to determine what is important. While heritage designation creates a reoriented trajectory for many places and landscapes, it also has the potential to open new social and political spaces for dialogue about change, allowing the recognition of continuity, creative rupture and the affective dimensions of place to be weighed alongside other, often more easily quantifiable, costs and benefits. In closing this chapter, I am reminded of mutterings often heard in the corridors of World Heritage meetings that sound something like this: “If heritage professionals were around then, iconic landmarks and works of beauty and creativity, such as the Eiffel Tower or the Sydney Opera House, would never have been allowed!” This concern about how contemporary architecture can be facilitated within heritage cities was a key driver of the Vienna Memorandum and the dynamic framing of the HUL approach. Important views can constitute the setting of places of heritage significance; they can be attributes that carry and transmit values; they can be enhanced, protected or lost. Yet they are often implicit rather than explicit in these formulations until threatened by proposed changes. Continued work to describe what is important and why, and the cultural contexts that assign importance, is therefore essential, including the deployment of participatory and ethnographic methods that consider the whole place and its values. Because important views are an amalgam of tangible characteristics and intangible meanings and associations, technical tools can and do assist but should not be relied upon to remove the tensions that have emerged in this dialogue. A common language has been elusive, possibly not even desirable, given the diversity of issues that comprise the view. Judgements about how much change is too much, how near to historic structures is too close, and how important views are or might be, will always be subjective and contested, and therefore political.

4.10 Postscript The overall trends since this paper was finalized are not simple to portray, in part because of the disruptions to the business of the World Heritage Committee in the years from 2020 to 2022 due to COVID-19 (which delayed the forty-fourth session), and the invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation (which caused a diplomatic impasse regarding the arrangements for the forty-fifth session). Many field missions had to be deferred due to the pandemic, further hindering the Committee’s work. While issues for ‘important views’ could occur in relation to any type of World Heritage property, in practice they arise for cultural heritage properties only, and are clustered in relation to urban heritage. The overview of threats described for the World Heritage Committee’s 2021 session indicated that many properties were affected by multiple sources or types of threat with cumulative impacts, although pressures arising from rapid and inadequately planned urban development were highlighted

70

K. Buckley

as usual.57 Many more reports refer to issues for the “setting” than for “important views,” but these are likely to be highly inter-related. Weaknesses in urban governance and regulations for managing change were described, along with the need for better guidance on the establishment and use of buffer zones, which have the potential to protect “important views” more effectively. A significant update is the completion of revised guidance for HIAs, combining the approaches for natural and cultural heritage for the first time, and introducing a new level of rigour to what is expected from these processes.58 In terms of the individual cases, many continue to raise concerns in the World Heritage Committee’s deliberations. The Historic Centre of Vienna remains on the List of World Heritage in Danger, although conditions were set for removal from the In Danger List. The most prominent proposal causing concern—the HeumarktIce Skating Club-Vienna Concert Hall project—has been cancelled and new design work was underway in 2021.59 If these processes continue, the site could become a useful demonstration of the effectiveness of the In-Danger listing mechanism of the convention. The identified issues remain for the Upper Middle Rhine Valley (Germany). In 2021, the World Heritage Committee welcomed the news of the cancellation of the Loreley Plateau Hotel project. The river crossing project was still delayed, and options were yet to be reviewed in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies. On the other hand, some new wind turbines had been established despite a line-of-sight study which considered their location to be inappropriate.60 A bitter decade of contestation ended with the delisting in 2021 of LiverpoolMaritime Mercantile City (United Kingdom). It had been on the List of World Heritage in Danger since 2012 due to concerns about redevelopment projects on the city’s significant waterfront, particularly the tall and high-density Liverpool Waters project. The development had continued unabated, eventually exhausting the mechanisms available to the World Heritage Committee (and to an extent, also the national government). Civil society representatives had repeatedly implored the committee to allow the World Heritage inscription to remain. There are divergent opinions about this case among observers and scholars, claiming that they demonstrate the politicization, ineffectiveness, archaic attitudes, and lack of capacity in the World Heritage system to deal with living cities.61 Impacts on the significant waterfront involved “important views” among other issues. There was a lack of alignment between the interests of local and national decision makers about how best to respond to economic pressures and opportunities for the city. The case dramatically demonstrates many of the tensions discussed in this chapter. 57

UNESCO, “World Heritage Committee, forty-fourth session,” state of conservation report, WHC/21/44.COM/7. 58 UNESCO et al. Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments. 59 UNESCO, “World Heritage Committee, forty-fourth session,” decision 43 COM 7A. 45. 60 Ibid., decision 43 COM 7B.155. 61 Rodwell, “Urban Landscape and the Delisting of Liverpool-Maritime Mercantile City,” 27–30 and summary by Meskell and Liuzza, “Saving the World.”

4 World Heritage: Defining and Protecting Important Views

71

Kristal Buckley AM is a heritage specialist and researcher based in Melbourne, Australia. She has worked in cultural heritage roles in academia, government, community organizations and consulting. She is an ICOMOS World Heritage Advisor and has served on the juries for the UNESCO-Greece Melina Mercouri International Prize for the Safeguarding and Management of Cultural Landscapes and the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Cultural Heritage Awards. Her research focuses on World Heritage and international heritage practices.

Chapter 5

Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950–2000 Julia Gersovitz

Abstract This chapter provides a survey of Canadian approaches to heritage conservation principles and practices from 1950–2000. The protection and promotion of cultural heritage falls under provincial jurisdiction and rather than providing a very broad history of 10 provinces and 3 territories, the author focuses on Québec and Montreal. This selective exercise allows the development of themes that can be extrapolated across the country. Several innovative projects, such as Maison Alcan, Montreal (1980–1983) in which the author played a key role, are discussed in depth, as is the controversial approach of facadism that demands analysis and definition. Attention is also paid to federal and municipal heritage policies. Although the chapter concentrates on a fifty-year period, this framework is elastic, tracing the origins and preoccupations of the conservation movement from the 1920s to the first two decades of the twenty-first century. The conclusion contains seven key recommendations for moving forward. Keywords Canadian conservation · Quebec conservation · Maison Alcan · Montreal · Facadism · patrimoine au Québec

5.1 Introduction This chapter began as a power point lecture that revisited the findings from the 2009 Montreal Round Table on Canadian approaches to conservation in the fifty-year period spanning 1950 to 2000. Initially, I found myself reluctant to report on the session documents collected in this Round Table, because to do so seemed dry and distant, although the papers were not.1 I decided to analyse this very broad subject through a lens that increasingly narrowed, from the broadest focus of Canada to Quebec and finally to Montreal. 1

Cameron and Boucher, Conserving Historic Places, 1–311.

J. Gersovitz (B) McGill University, Montréal, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Cameron (ed.), Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century, Creativity, Heritage and the City 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2_5

73

74

J. Gersovitz

In doing so, I found myself not so much reporting on history, but shaping a memoir. Like most such documents, it is a heavily personal, scarcely comprehensive, and a somewhat redacted kaleidoscope of impressions and facts. It is undoubtedly biased by my own experiences as an activist member of Save Montreal and later Héritage Montréal, and as a conservation architect from 1975 to today. It lacks much understanding of the deep and sometimes glacial impacts of federal legislation and policy. It is what the late Herb Stovel called a “kind of selective and impressionistic prowl through history.”2 However, the exercise of weaving ideas from the 2009 session with personal experience has allowed me to reflect on the practice of Canadian heritage conservation as we move into the third decade of the twenty-first century. The 2009 papers do not address the work of pioneering individuals whose personal conviction helped to create a groundswell of popular support for conservation and, in turn, forced politicians to act. These people deserve acknowledgement and their names are woven into this memoir. This chapter is organised by decade. A caveat. As with all exercises that attempt to compartmentalize historical events into neat packaging, it fails to acknowledge that ten-year patterns rarely correspond to the conventions of “decades.” For example, the societal changes that are associated with the 1960s probably only began about 1963 and waned with the Vietnam War in the early 1970s. However, it is much easier to borrow the simplicity of the “decade” terminology and I have done so.

5.2 Context: 1910–1950 In Quebec, the roots of the modern conservation movement can be traced to the first decades of the twentieth century, when there was an awakening to the cultural values of its traditional architecture. Champions came from diverse backgrounds. Three men worthy of mention are the painter Clarence Gagnon (1881–1942), the academic, architect and historian Ramsay Traquair (1874–1952), and the lawyer and politician Athanase David (1882–1953). Born in Montreal, Clarence Gagnon spent much of his career in Paris. However, he painted only Canadian subjects. “I dream only of Canada,” he wrote.3 His paintings of Charlevoix towns provided a Canadian audience with powerful images of vividly coloured houses and towering churches. This fascination with the villages of his youth was not solely aesthetic. In 1928, he provided fifty-eight illustrations for the Laurentian setting of Louis Hémon’s novel Maria Chapdelaine: “My purpose was to catch the spirit of Canada and of the French-Canadian life, which the book immortalizes. That book represents the struggle of a brave little minority and reveals the true pioneering instinct of those early settlers. It is Canadian and yet universal

2 3

Stovel, “Training and Research,” 107. National Gallery of Canada, “Clarence Gagnon.”

5 Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950–2000

75

in its picture of a struggle where people are determined to maintain their own religion, language and customs.”4 His work helped to focus attention on the value of the rural architecture of Quebec, a subject that was to be further celebrated by Ramsay Traquair. Professor Traquair was a Scot who immigrated to Montreal to become the third director of the McGill University School of Architecture. He taught there from 1913 to 1939, during which time he was responsible for documenting many of the oldest buildings in the province. He did this largely by using student labour to measure and photograph historic buildings across Quebec. Often, the buildings under study were subsequently demolished, leaving the McGill records as their only legacy. Much of this research was incorporated into Traquair’s 1947 book on the old architecture of Quebec.5 However, it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that Traquair’s impact only began with this publication. Through his teaching, he influenced generations of architects to study the historic buildings of Quebec. Harold L. Featherstonhaugh, A. T. Galt Durnford, Harold E. Shorey and Douglas Ritchie were all McGill-trained architects who sparked a revival of early Quebec domestic architecture from the 1910s to the 1940s, no doubt due in large measure to Traquair’s leadership and insistence on scholarship. Through his public exhibitions and speeches, he encouraged a larger audience to awaken to the values of its local buildings. Athanase David is the third figure of note. As a cabinet minister in several Liberal governments from 1919 to 1926, he was instrumental in encouraging and protecting the literary and visual arts. One of his major legacies was the creation and adoption of the 1922 Loi relative à la conservation des monuments et des objets d’art ayant un intérêt historique ou artistique (Law on the Conservation of Monuments and Works of Art of Historical or Artistic Interest). This legislation was the first in Canada to protect cultural heritage, both built and commemorative. Commendable and innovative as the legislation was, today the list of protected objects (commemorative monuments, churches and chapels, forts from the French regime, windmills, religious crosses, commemorative plaques, devotional inscriptions and, finally, old houses) is striking for its lack of inclusion, focusing narrowly on reinforcing the image of Quebec as a society rooted entirely in French Catholicism. The legislation had this narrow focus despite the fact that, in 1921, the English-speaking population was hovering at about 15% of the overall society, a decline from 25% in the mid-nineteenth century.6 This bias is worthy of note because it has haunted cultural property decision-making in the province to the present day.

4

Newlands, Canadian Art, 116–17. Traquair, The Old Architecture of Quebec, 1–324. 6 Marianopolis College, “Anglophone population.” 5

76

J. Gersovitz

5.3 The 1950s It is a truism in heritage conservation that “poverty is a great preservationist.” The Great Depression and its effects through the 1930s, followed by World War II, meant that there was little economic pressure on the built fabric until several years after the war had ended. In Quebec, as in the rest of the country, there were two sources of threat: the private sector’s construction activity, mirroring the general renewal of economic activity, and governmental decisions at all three levels to undertake urban renewal or, as it was then called, “slum clearances.” This was a program very much supported by the federal government through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). The funding resulted in the large-scale demolition of poorer neighbourhoods across Canada. In Montreal, an example which continues to be reviewed critically was the destruction from 1956 to 1959 of the neighbourhood known (clearly pejoratively) as “le Red-Light”7 to make way for the construction of the residential towers known as the Habitations Jeanne-Mance, just east of the central business district. Today, the project continues to be an anomaly within its surroundings. In his analysis of the impact of the federally-funded Neighbourhood Improvement Plan, Pierre Filion argues that the type of top-down decision making that continued to define Montreal’s urban renewal through the 1960s was symptomatic of the bureaucratic culture of the time in Quebec. In particular, it was symptomatic of Mayor Jean Drapeau’s Civic Party which ruled the city for decades starting in the 1950s. This hierarchical process was in contrast to what Filion describes as the participatory model that emerged at the same time in Toronto.8 Other examples of this wholesale destruction of Montreal neighbourhoods include the 1963 demolition of le Faubourg à m’lasse for the headquarters of CBC/Radio Canada, and the next year, the start of the demolition of Goose Village to make way for part of the Expo 67 infrastructure. It is impossible to leave the 1950s behind without mentioning two initiatives, different in action, but similar in their intent to conserve and promote heritage. The first was the federal Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences (the Massey Commission), which was “concerned with nothing less than the spiritual foundations of our national life.”9 The commissioners, Norman Mackenzie, Georges-Henri Lévesque, Hilda Neatby, Vincent Massey, and Arthur Surveyor, set out to search for “what can make our country great, and what can make it one.”10 Gordon Bennett, in his presentation to the 2009 Round Table, notes the understated, but large influence of Neatby, acknowledging her championing of the

7

The association of historic neighbourhoods with immorality or general uncleanliness is consistent with the modernist narrative of starting anew, with antiseptically, germ-free and presumably vicefree environments. 8 Filion, “The Neighbourhood Improvement Plan.” 9 Canada, Report of the Royal Commission, 271. 10 Ibid.

5 Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950–2000

77

1953 Historic Sites and Monuments Act.11 The other was the 1958–1961 creation of Upper Canada Village near Morrisburg, Ontario, a result of the building of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the consequent flooding of communities bordering the riverbank. The puzzling legacy of this “living history site” has yet to be unraveled, but it is certain that it legitimized the idea that buildings could be removed from their context and reinvigorated, seemingly without loss of heritage value.12 Like Kings Landing in New Brunswick, where buildings were relocated to allow for the construction of the headpond for the Mactaquac dam, Upper Canada Village provided an intellectual justification that allowed governments to discard whole neighbourhoods and even villages, if they saved the “best” and institutionalized the remains. The consequences of this approach continue to resonate across the country, in projects that accept a snippet of a heritage building as a stand-in for the whole and in interventions that erase all context and presume that there will be no catastrophic impact on heritage values. The history of the conservation movement in Quebec cannot be fully told without highlighting the contribution of Canadian Heritage of Quebec (CHQ). In the mid1950s, the eighteenth-century Hurtubise house in Westmount was threatened with demolition (Fig. 5.1). The formidable Alice Lighthall C. M. (1891–1991),13 aided by Mabel Molson (1879–1973), began a campaign that brought together David M. Stewart (1920–1984), C. J. G. (Jack) Molson (1902–1997) and his friends, businessman James Beattie and lawyer Erskine Buchanan. It was an impressive coalition of determination and money. Two architects, John Bland (1911–2002) who was the Director of the McGill School of Architecture and P. Roy Wilson (1900–2001), provided technical expertise. The money bought the house, saving the site from redevelopment and ensuring its survival. Molson then founded CHQ in 1960. Its rather curious name reflects Molson’s intention to create mirror organizations in each province. This was not to be. However, many other properties were acquired within the province of Quebec, including la maison Lepailleur and Cap Mont-Joli at its eastern tip, which terminates in the sweep of Percé Rock. There has been no in-depth history of the CHQ nor analysis of its broader impact on heritage conservation in Quebec. It is certain that the organization could easily represent the importance of the voluntary societies that were lauded by the authors of the Massey Report. The early success of the CHQ was no doubt due to the deep pockets and clear intentions of Molson and Stewart. It did not have to expend countless hours on public fund-raising. However, since the death of the founders, the organization has relied on volunteer time and donations from the public for its survival. Two observations are important. The first is that the CHQ fulfilled the role that should reasonably have been assumed by the Quebec government. The Hurtubise house clearly fell within its purview, as defined by law. However, the provincial

11

Bennett, “The Federal Policy Role,” 166. The Historic Sites and Monuments Act was amended in 1955 to include the designation of significant historic buildings as national historic sites. 12 See Chap. 12 in this volume. 13 Howe, “Auntie Alice.”

78

J. Gersovitz

Fig. 5.1 Hurtubise house, Westmount, Canada in 2014. Photograph from Canadian Heritage of Quebec, Jean Gagnon

government did not intervene to protect the house, although it had the power to classify the building.14 In fact, the site was not officially protected until 2004. Secondly, the CHQ was not alone in the country, although it was one of the first voluntary societies dedicated to the preservation of built heritage. It is easy to dismiss these groups for their elitist roots and focus. Their histories need to be researched and circulated because they demonstrate the importance and success of grassroots activism spanning the country and engaging diverse cultural groups. By way of example, the local Chinese-Canadian community, organized as the Strathcona Property Owners and Tenants Association spearheaded a protracted defence of the Strathcona residential district in Vancouver.

5.4 The 1960s In general, the 1960s continued the themes of the previous decade. Montreal saw two large and seemingly divergent initiatives—the creation of its first historic district and the rebuilding of the downtown. In 1964, in response to increased public pressure as demolitions multiplied in the old city, Mayor Jean Drapeau’s Civic Party, in concert with the Quebec government, created the historic district of Old Montreal. The boundaries more or less followed the original fortification walls. While the subsequent success of the historic district as a residential neighbourhood, commercial hub, and tourist destination is undeniable, its creation has also enabled the destruction 14

Saint-Pierre, “Le Québec et ses politiques culturelles,” 199.

5 Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950–2000

79

of other areas of the city, deemed of “lesser” heritage importance, most notably the central business district in the Square Mile. Much of Montreal’s significant Victorian architecture in the downtown fell to the wrecking ball. Research is needed to confirm the hypothesis that while heritage districts protect small enclaves, their creation promotes rampant destruction outside their boundaries. The creation in 1963 of a National Historic Site on the Halifax harbourfront known as the Historic Properties, or in 1978 the Warehouse District in Winnipeg would seem to follow this pattern, wherein a small amount of heritage architecture is saved, but it is soon surrounded by high-density construction that dwarfs and marginalizes it.15 As the decade advanced, urban expansion and large infrastructure projects continued unabated. Montreal’s metro (subway) system was built; at the same time, however, vast sums were dedicated to improving ways for cars to navigate the city.16 Inevitably, street widening led to demolitions. Highway construction, such as the Ville Marie expressway, led to the destruction of entire neighbourhoods and largescale displacement of their populations. Expo 67 was created and the focus of the architectural community was firmly fixed on new construction as the only indicator of progress. The general establishment and political ethos could be summed up as follows: “If you want to save old buildings, go amuse yourself in Old Montreal. Otherwise, get out of our way.”

5.5 The 1970s Some individuals simply refused to move aside. Instead, they mounted tenacious and rather sophisticated opposition to the destruction of such Canadian landmarks as Windsor Station and districts like the Faubourg des Récollets, lying just to the west of Old Montreal. Audrey Bean and architects Peter Lanken and Michael Fish were instrumental in saving the iconic CPR train station. By 1973, the Milton Park Committee, led by, among others, Lucia Kowaluk and Phyllis Bronfman Lambert, thwarted the intended redevelopment of the eastern sector of the student ghetto neighbouring the McGill campus. During this period, the catalyst for broader action was about to spark. In the early dawn of 8 September 1973, demolition began on the house of Cornelius Van Horne on Sherbrooke Street west in the heart of the Square Mile. Its destruction and replacement by a nondescript office tower represented a clear failure on the part of the three levels of government. There was a fierce wellspring of anger and a good deal of fallout. After the fact, the Quebec government classified three adjacent properties and the Montreal activist community grew in number and then amalgamated. 15

This study would be tangled with issues of gentrification, since the early protections were afforded to the most homogeneous and intact residential neighbourhoods, usually occupied by wealthier citizens. 16 Perrin, “It’s your city,” 8, states that 50% of Montreal’s budget was spent on road infrastructure between 1960 and 1966.

80

J. Gersovitz

The various small single-interest groups, such as the Friends of Windsor Station, the Society for Great Places which had been formed to protect the Van Horne mansion, the Lower Westmount Association, the Milton Park Committee, and the Community Design Workshop led by McGill professor Joseph Baker, soon coalesced into Sauvons Montréal/Save Montreal. Founded in October 1973, its charter proclaimed its grassroots ideology: “This organization dedicates itself to the preservation of housing and community assets, for the shelter and enjoyment of all citizens of the region of Montreal. Community assets are understood to include buildings of social and cultural value, and open spaces within and around the urban region. Furthermore, this organization will work actively to support the achievement of planning legislation that will be responsive to the needs and wishes of the citizens of Montreal.”17 Save Montreal enjoyed some specular successes, including preventing the demolition of the Grey Nuns motherhouse in downtown Montreal.18 In keeping with my desire to honour champions, a mention must be made of Raymond Tait Affleck, a founding partner of Arcop Associates, who allowed Save Montreal to operate gratis from his office. As long as the architects and urban planners whom he employed did their work on time, he had no problem with their slipping away in the afternoon to attend meetings or demonstrations. Many a poster and counter-proposition was printed on “Arcop-funded” paper. Gradually the loosely structured, entirely volunteer Save Montreal would cede its place and prominence to Héritage Montréal, founded and generously funded by Phyllis Bronfman Lambert in 1975. Mark London, an architect and urban planner, and a Save Montreal founder, became Héritage Montréal’s first executive director. Before closing the window on the 1970s, it is important to discuss two works of art, each of which in its own way influenced the social and political landscape of heritage conservation in Montreal. The first was the 1973 film Réjeanne Padovani by the celebrated Quebec writer and director, Denys Arcand. The second was the Corridart installation. The theme of Réjeanne Padovani was broadly the corruption associated with highway construction in the province. In the aftermath of the final 2015 report of the Commission of Inquiry on the Awarding and Management of Public Contracts in the Construction Industry, presided over by Madame Justice France Charbonneau, Arcand has been hailed as a prophet.19 But the movie has secondary themes that were chilling to the local heritage conservation movement. The first was the suggestion that even in a first world society, activists can be at risk of reprisal if they get in the way of powerful forces. The second message occurs in the very last scene of the film. Against the soaring notes of a Glück aria, the camera slowly pans across the destruction of house after house to make way for the new highway. The message is direct. Whole neighbourhoods and their heritage can be mere collateral damage in

17

Ibid., 46. This complex, dating from 1870, has recently been repurposed as a student residence for Concordia University. The chapel is now a library. 19 Lévesque, “Le cas Réjeanne Padovani.” 18

5 Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950–2000

81

the path of personal greed and political corruption. It was a sobering scene and one that continues to haunt me. The second work of art was the Corridart installation, curated by the architect and academic Melvin Charney as part of the festivities for the 1976 Montreal Olympics. Lining both sides of Sherbrooke Street for kilometres, the installation, which had been funded by the provincial government’s Ministère des Affaires culturelles, featured works by over sixty artists. Scaffolding provided mounting for large photographs with gigantic yellow fingers that pointed to redeveloped sites like the Van Horne property; sculptures provoked discussion and reflection. Mayor Drapeau was incensed. Within three days in the summer of 1976, days before the official opening of the Olympic Summer Games, and without any warning, Corridart was dismantled by city workers and the works destroyed. Charney was unrepentant about the installation.20 There were protests in the streets, and then they were over, without effect. Drapeau was known for his autocratic and centralized rule. The covert removal of criticism seemed within character. How, then, was Corridart important? In prior battles to save buildings, various governments had either ignored community input or they had made marginal accommodation. Corridart represented a shift. The politicians were not passively ignoring criticism as in the past; they were actively using the power of the state to suppress it. This shift, coupled with the growing sense of fatigue or perhaps understanding of the menace implicitly described in Réjeanne Padovani, subtly changed the dynamics of protest. Héritage Montréal’s channelling of activism into public education, mainstream lobbying, and fund-raising was an attractive option to many Save Montrealers, including me. It is necessary to understand the activism of the 1970s as coming out of a shifting societal ethos that was affecting the country from sea to sea. The examples are myriad. Union Station in Toronto, often referenced as the best neoclassical building in the country, was slated for demolition by the Toronto Metropolitan City Council in 1970. The decision was reversed and the complex saved through citizen activism and the election of David Crombie as Mayor of Toronto in 1972. The names of many of the citizen groups speak of their location: the Strathcona Property Owners and Tenants Association in Vancouver; the Lunenburg Heritage Society founded in 1972; the Society for the Protection of Architectural Resources in Edmonton founded in 1979. Clearly, it was not only Montrealers who were questioning authority. These grassroots organizations were complemented by national groups that were interested in overarching principles and sound practice. Sometimes, these were initially government funded, like the Heritage Canada Foundation (now the National Trust of Canada), established in 1973. Sometimes they were the result of the banding together of like-minded professionals in the fields of architectural conservation (Association for Preservation Technology, 1968) or architectural history (Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada, 1974). The 1970s also began with the oil crisis and the gradual awakening to the idea that older buildings were inherently more energy-efficient than newer ones, both in their 20

Laforge, “L’affaire Corridart.”

82

J. Gersovitz

design principles and in their construction. At the same time, the 1960s had birthed a counter-culture and back-to-the-land movement that questioned basic assumptions of how society behaved, how authority could and should be challenged, and how the natural world was being destroyed or discarded within the urban centres. In addition, newspaper reports increased concerning polluted places such as the Love Canal in upstate New York, where toxic environments were festering and people dying because of government inaction. Suddenly, questioning the status quo and conventional ideas of progress tied to rampant development seemed not only possible, but a civic duty. The movement away from the protection of individual monuments, an early focus of the Quebec government and the CHQ, towards a broader understanding of the importance of community preservation, such as Milton Park, was consistent with what Christina Cameron identified as the shift away from “the moment in time” approach.21 At the same time that local government actions were being challenged, some transformative initiatives emerged. In 1976, Canada ratified the 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (the World Heritage Convention). The first cultural site in Canada to be listed as World Heritage was L’Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland in 1978. Changes were made to the Quebec Cultural Property Act in order to control the environment around heritage properties. However, nothing in Canada could or would match the impact of the United States Tax Reform Act of 1976 that stimulated the regeneration of countless American cities through the appropriate rehabilitation of their historic buildings. As Hugh Miller commented in his presentation to the 2009 Round Table, the legislation “spurred a multi-billion dollar historic rehabilitation industry. Architects, contractors and developers…joined the ‘cultural resource management business’ with notable successes.”22 Alas, despite the growing understanding that Canadian cities could also benefit from such a tax incentive program, successive federal governments in this country remain intransigent. We continue as of 2020 to be a country of sticks, without carrots.

5.6 The 1980s Despite the lack of tax incentives, as the 1980s began, Montreal started to witness projects that incorporated heritage buildings or parts of them, to varying degrees of critical acclaim. The incorporation of fragments from the historic St. Jacques Church into the main pavilion of the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) is an interesting case study that deserves in-depth research.23 On the surface, the 21

Cameron, “Conclusion 2009,” 301. Miller, “Approaches to Heritage Conservation,” 35. 23 The church was first constructed in 1856. Following its destruction by fire, another church was built in 1860, and, following subsequent additions and disasters, the most authentic parts of the church were by 1974 the south transept, the tower and the woodwork from the sacristy. These 22

5 Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950–2000

83

project designed by Dimitri Dimakopoulos,24 a former partner in Arcop Associates, can be dismissed as a very visible example of façadism, in which only the most “authentic” parts of the church were wrenched from their original context, protected and then integrated into an educational complex. While this is undoubtedly true and the final result flawed, it is also worth investigating the project as a turning point, when a government entity acknowledged the need to preserve instead of completely bulldoze. At the 2009 Round Table, Steve Barber, speaking from his experience as a senior heritage planner for the City of Victoria, discussed the failure of façadism, noting a number of innovative measures enacted by municipal planners since the 1960s to protect heritage assets. Nonetheless, he concluded, “façadism continues to be the acceptable political compromise for city councillors and planners struggling to reconcile the conflicting forces of heritage conservation and modern land development.”25 There has been much discussion about façadism without much in-depth analysis of what it is. Standard dictionary definitions refer to the severing of the front façade from its interior spaces, often adding a rationale for the activity. The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture defines façadism as “retention of the front or exterior of a building even though the interior is completely gutted and replaced: this may be thought necessary because of the contribution the exterior or the façade makes to a street or to the townscape.”26 I would argue that there are several types of façadism, the first having historical roots and the second being a recent phenomenon based, as Steve Barber has noted, in attempts to have one’s cake and eat it too. The first, which I call type 1, involves the retention of the façade in place, where the floors and spaces behind align with it, such that the whole is comprehensible. Examples can be seen as early as the beginning of the eighteenth century, in projects such as Place Vendôme in Paris. This famous square is defined by the uniformity and conformity of its French Renaissance architecture. The architect of King Louis XIV first built the façades; the houses came after, as each building lot was sold off to an individual purchaser. Early engravings of the square show some façades propped up in place; others are part of coherent buildings. To some extent, many buildings which have been significantly renovated over time can be understood to be exercises in type 1 façadism. It is probable that the streets of many older cities are lined with credible examples that remain unnoticed by passers-by. Type 2 façadism is much more problematic. It is this approach that Steve Barber, like many others, laments. It is the demolition of the entire building, save for the façade, which is seen as an artefact in itself. This so-called liberation frees designers from having to integrate the façade with its new interior. As an artefact, it can simply fragments were classified by the Ministère des Affaires culturelles and the rest of the church was demolished to permit construction of the campus. UQAM, “Le clocher.” 24 Dimitri Dimakopoulos (1929–1995) is credited as the design architect. His office was in joint venture with Jodoin Lamarre Pratte. 25 Barber, “Canadian Planning,” 81 26 Curl and Wilson, The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture, facadism.

84

J. Gersovitz

“hang” or be supported in advance of or underneath a new construction. This approach is consistently used when the façade becomes part of a much larger composition, for example when a three-storey historic façade is enveloped by a ninety-metre tower. The results are rarely satisfactory, neither to the frustrated conservationists nor to the reluctant developer and his architects. In considering the ethical dimensions of this approach, Robert Bargery writes: “Façadism that simply gives aggressively commercial development a sheen of respectability or allows planners to deceive themselves that they are preserving heritage is often the product of lazy, complacent thinking, and it is no bad thing to be jolted out of it.”27 Once a façade has been reduced to a thin skin, it is a short road to its losing its authenticity and what remains of its integrity. Rather than being kept in situ, at some obvious cost, the façade is dismantled. It goes without saying that this act of deconstruction destroys the original craftsmanship linked to its construction technology. The final product is wallpaper, the only authenticity of the artefact now residing in the reused materials, usually blocks of stone. In addition, the historic façade is often modified, the very definition of a Procrustean intervention. (In Greek mythology, Procrustes would offer a hapless passer-by shelter, directing him to a bed for the night. Those who were too tall for the bed would have their limbs hacked off to fit; those who were too short were racked until they were the appropriate length.) In Canada, as elsewhere, there are multiple examples of a reinstated façade being manipulated to fit the new dimensions of the project. Too tall? Simply remove several floors. Too short? Add a base, add an attic. This Procrustean approach was certainly the path taken for the design of Place Mercantile on Sherbrooke Street opposite the McGill campus.28 Designed by the architects David, Boulva and Cleve and completed in 1982, the project comprised the retention of four greystone townhouse façades and the street facades of the McGill YMCA, attached to a multi-storey tower. Several buildings were completely erased. It could be argued that the idea of marrying three-storey houses to a ninety-two metre tower was, from the outset, an impossible design problem. However, one of the most controversial and egregious aspects of the project was the disregard for the integrity of the original façades which fronted on Sherbrooke Street (Fig. 5.2). Fundamental to the architectural parti, the townhouses were completely demolished and their facades rebuilt. Behind this Potemkin screen looms the angled aluminium-clad office building. This design decision rendered the façadism of the project explicit to passers-by (Fig. 5.3). Furthermore, each façade was played with: its full-storey base was amputated, so that the original raised ground floor now meets the ground plane; the entry stairs were angled from their original straight run (Fig. 5.4). The neighbouring Perrigo house, with its red and ochre sandstone façade, was replaced by a secondary entrance with a glass curtain wall façade. The YMCA building was

27

Bargery, “The Ethics of Façadism.” The Cornwall Centre, opened in downtown Regina in 1981, is another example of a Procrustian bargain. The Canadian Bank of Commerce was reduced to a façade and integrated into the pedestrian concourse of the mall.

28

5 Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950–2000

85

Fig. 5.2 Row houses on Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, Canada in 1980, prior to Place Mercantile project. Photograph from Devencore, Montreal

completely demolished. McGill University had sold the land assembly to the developer, on the condition that the YMCA building be retained. After its destruction, the university insisted that the terms of the sale be respected and that the façades be rebuilt. Again, a Procrustean solution resulted in a shorter building, without a base and top storey as well as a completely new and regularized façade on McGill College Avenue. The project remains a demonstration of the pitfalls of this course of action and the general dissatisfaction that it engenders from a conservation perspective. At virtually the same time, another private-sector project nearing completion demonstrated a completely different approach. From 1980 to 1983, the world headquarters of the Aluminium Company of Canada29 (Alcan) took shape further west on Sherbrooke Street, in the heart of the Square Mile and kitty-corner from the site of the demolished Van Horne house. Architectural historians too often judge a building without benefit of understanding the evolution of a project, as the architects and other professionals struggle to address their joint responsibilities to their client and to the general public. I enjoyed a unique vantage point in understanding how the Alcan project came about. In the summer of 1980, I had returned to my hometown of Montreal from graduate studies in historic preservation at Columbia University. Shortly thereafter, I became the conservation architect in charge of the four historic buildings incorporated into the Alcan complex. The partner in charge of the project, Ray Affleck of Arcop Associates, generously allowed me a free hand

29

For a more detailed discussion, see Gersovitz, Julia. “Making Heritage: Some Observations.” Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology 49, no. 2–3 (2018): 69–71. https://www. jstor.org/stable/26502505.

86

J. Gersovitz

Fig. 5.3 Place Mercantile, Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, Canada, view of junction between historic house and office tower. Photograph by Julia Gersovitz

Fig. 5.4 Place Mercantile, Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, Canada, view of reconstructed houses looking west. Photograph by Julia Gersovitz

5 Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950–2000

87

Fig. 5.5 Maison Alcan, view looking west along Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, Canada in 1980 before project start. Photograph by Julia Gersovitz

in the decision-making about the heritage properties. I therefore can report on the early design decisions with as much confidence as memory allows. Maison Alcan was the first private sector, high-profile conservation project in Canada. It involved the integration of four historic buildings with a new aluminium curtain-wall office building for Alcan and a smaller one for its partnerby-circumstance, the Salvation Army. Affleck designed the complex to be what he called “pedestrian-porous,” set within a landscaped mini-park open to the public. The project boasted one of Montreal’s first glass-covered atriums that linked the heritage structures to the new buildings (Figs. 5.5, 5.6). The genesis and drive for the project came entirely from David Culver, the President of Alcan. It fell to Affleck and his team to translate this vision into built reality. His understanding of how the complex should fit into the existing urban fabric, respecting the scale of the city block, was brilliant. This was the world headquarters of an international corporation, but it was the antithesis of the power tower. It was a gracious and ultimately modest insertion, with elegantly detailed materials—an anodized aluminum curtain wall that spoke rather subtly of Alcan’s product and presence. For the historic buildings, we emphasized scholarship, authenticity and craftsmanship, all still evident until very recently. The architectural design/production team was separated into two: one for the old buildings including the Atholstan,30 Beique,31 and Holland32 houses, the Berkeley

30

1895, Dunlop and Heriot architects. 1893, Charles H. Chaussé architect. 32 1872, William Tutin Thomas architect. 31

88

J. Gersovitz

Fig. 5.6 Maison Alcan, view looking west along Sherbrooke St. West, Montreal, Canada in 1983 after project completion. Photograph by Julia Gersovitz

Hotel33 and the Congregational Church,34 and one for the new construction of the Davis Building, the Salvation Army Headquarters and the Atrium. One of the first decisions to be made was how the heritage buildings along Sherbrooke Street were to be treated. One of Affleck’s partners wanted to gut the houses and spray-paint what remained white. He was insistent on both an erasure and a manipulation of the palimpsest, proposing the replacement of the Berkeley Hotel with two replica houses that had never existed. As the conservation architect, I argued for the complete retention of all the heritage buildings, inside and out. It would be empowering to claim that I was so very persuasive in getting my way, but I recently learned from architect Clément Demers that the City of Montréal architects—he was the chief architect of the division—were pushing hard to save and restore each building. The city also had little time for the idea of tidying up the site by demolishing the Berkeley. So there was a consistent message and, quite early on, the overall design concept to restore each of the interiors to reflect its own period was set. The idea that each building would speak of its own history and period was very important to me. A research program was carried out to determine which buildings had “value,” as we would say today, and which did not. Determining the original owners led to honouring them in the renaming of the properties and helped to establish the houses as having individual personalities, expressed in their architectural details, colour palettes, and fabrics. Once the research was compiled, the design work respected the principles that were set out, even if they were only informally described, influenced primarily by my education at Columbia and Association for 33 34

1928, Lawson and Little architects. 1906, Archibald and Saxe architects.

5 Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950–2000

89

Preservation Technology conferences. We were able to explain what needed to be saved, what needed to be restored, and where change could be tolerated or even encouraged. In the early 1980s, there was no conservation construction network, no specialized heritage craftsmen, no conservators working in the private sector. But there were talented people who knew their métier, and took palpable pride in their work. Their enthusiastic collaboration with the design team enriched the project. We were inventive, but we were also respectful. Within the buildings, we did new design work in such a way that it completed the experience; it never sought to take front stage. We tried to understand the architectural decisions of the past and to defend them passionately when they were still present and to fight equally passionately when we wanted to reinstate elements that had been removed and that really needed to be put back to re-establish the coherence of the spaces. Our approach anticipated the Canadian idea of “compatible, subordinate and distinguishable” new design work set out later in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.35 In 2017, the Government of Quebec designated Maison Alcan, the former world headquarters of Alcan, as a provincial heritage site. The government declared that “this administrative complex, which constitutes an innovative example of architectural integration, is considered an important milestone in the history of the conservation of built heritage in Quebec.”36 It is the interweaving of new and historic buildings into a single complex that the government classified as a monument. Other Montreal projects that wholly integrated historic buildings into larger projects included the 1986 World Trade Centre37 on the edge of Old Montreal, and the 1989 Canadian Centre for Architecture, Phyllis Lambert’s extraordinary museum and research centre. However much these projects demonstrated that designs could be enriched by the conservation and integration of historic properties, it was clear in other examples that, while individual battles were won, the war was scarcely over. When the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts (MMFA) hired architect Moshe Safdie to design a new pavilion on Sherbrooke Street, his architectural parti stretched along a full city block. Heritage Montreal pronounced itself in opposition for two reasons. First, the sheer size of the proposed pavilion would compromise the primacy of the original 1912 building designed by E. and W.S. Maxwell. Secondly, the 1905 New Sherbrooke Apartments would be demolished. At a meeting between Pierre Théberge, the MMFA director, and members of Heritage Montreal, Théberge offered to dismantle and reproduce the façades rather than keeping them in place. The result, he felt, would be better than new. The proposal was dropped after I asked if he would be as satisfied if one of his Rembrandts were replaced by a better-than-new reproduction, without cracked paint and dirt. It was striking that the principles of art conservation did not transpose into architectural conservation. 35

Parks Canada, Standards and Guidelines, standard 11. Répertoire, “La Maison-Alcan” [author’s translation]. 37 Arcop Associates in joint venture with Provencher Roy. Gersovitz Becker Moss were the conservation architects for the overall project and for the Nordheimer Building, part of the Montreal Intercontinental Hotel. 36

90

J. Gersovitz

In the 1980s and 1990s, repurposed historic buildings, in whole or in part, could be found throughout the country. The 1981 Cornwall Centre in Regina and the 1994 Design Exchange in Toronto are just two other examples of a trend that, for better or worse, demonstrated a societal desire to push back against redevelopment pressures and demand some retention of heritage buildings. In the absence of any guidelines or in-depth analysis, the results continue to this day, with increasing frequency, to be judged as unsatisfactory conservation projects. Just as the 1970s witnessed the establishment of local and national organizations, the end of the 1980s saw the founding of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals (CAHP), dedicated in part to establishing and promoting the best principles and standards of practice in the emerging field of heritage conservation.

5.7 The 1990s Several of the decades prior to the 1990s had been hit by economic recessions, often created by a drop in construction after artificial binges such as Expo 67 or the Montreal Olympics. The early 1990s were particularly sobering times. There was a significant economic downturn across the continent. In some ways, it was a period of reflection at the federal level, in part because of departmental reorganization that shifted responsibility for Parks Canada from the Department of the Environment to the newly-created Department of Canadian Heritage. Treasury Board consolidated the 1982 Federal Heritage Building Policy by extending its application to all federal departments in 1987 and by including the policy in the Treasury Board Real Property Administrative Manual in 1991. These initiatives would create important frameworks for the rehabilitation of federally-owned assets, such as the triad of buildings on Parliament Hill and within the larger Parliamentary Precinct. While the federal government was striving to put in place a set of principles that could direct its projects, the pendulum was beginning to swing in the opposite direction at the municipal level in Montreal. Drapeau’s Civic Party was defeated in 1986 by Jean Doré’s Montreal Citizens’ Movement (MCM).38 Some of its first planning initiatives included the identification and protection of the cores of each village that had been incorporated over time into the metropolis of Montreal. This fascinating and innovative idea reflected the bottom-up decision making of the MCM. In 1990, the St. Isidore Convent, owned by the Sisters of Providence, was formally protected by Montreal City Council. But six years later, after continued lobbying by the Sisters, the city council, now controlled by councillors from the Vision Montréal party of Pierre Bourque,39 declassified the site, allowing its almost immediate demolition.40

38

Jean Doré was Mayor of Montreal from 1986 to 1994. Pierre Bourque was Mayor of Montreal from 1994 to 2001 40 Conseil, “Couvent Saint-Isidore,” 56–7. 39

5 Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950–2000

91

This reversal was only a harbinger of a new developer-friendly, heritage-lite atmosphere which continued after Bourque under Gérald Tremblay and the Montreal Island Citizens Union. The 1990s can be characterised as a period of skirmishes between conservationists who sought to build upon the awakening interest in both vernacular and “monumental” heritage and those who favoured demolition. However, as the decade wore on, developers increasingly found themselves confronting a new reality of heritage reviews and protections, enacted at the municipal level, as politicians across the country began to respond to public pressure. This changing environment also resulted in increased demand for greater professionalism in both private practice and in the public sector. Phyllis Lambert had already been funding public awareness and education through home renovation courses and guided tours under the aegis of Héritage Montréal. Her endowment of a master’s program in conservation at the Université de Montréal in 1987 ensured the training of a new generation of architects and managers who had previously been forced to attend schools outside of Canada. The next year, Carleton University created a masters program in heritage conservation, followed by others across the country.

5.8 The 2000s to the Present Sufficient distance has yet to be achieved so that Canadian conservation in the first two decades of the twenty-first century can be adequately analyzed and trends identified. There are however, two initiatives that have already had an important impact on heritage conservation. The first is the commitment to implementing the recommendations, published in 2015, of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Set up in 2008 to inform all Canadians about what happened in the Indian residential schools, from their founding in the 1870s to the last closure in the 1990s, the TRC is based on the concept of “restorative justice” and seeks to heal the relationships between the Indigenous peoples and those who have harmed them, either intentionally or less directly. The calls for action include confronting the past, acknowledging harm done, atonement and finally changes in behaviour. Within this framework of actions, many of the European-settler monuments are being reconsidered. Generally, up to this time, monuments and buildings had been identified for having heritage values either for essentially positive or heroic associations. There had rarely been a focus in Canada on monuments or sites that were to be conserved specifically for their negative connotation, a phenomenon familiar to the World Heritage system. Coming to terms with the legacy of residential schools has changed this complacency. The larger Canadian society has begun to comprehend how buildings that are symbols of pain and suffering can be used to document and narrate this dark period in the history of the country. It is also interesting to note that the process of evaluating and determining what should be done to each school and site is being led by Indigenous communities themselves, not by external experts.

92

J. Gersovitz

The second initiative is also a federal one. In 2003, Parks Canada published the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada. Updated in 2010, this document was created by a federal, provincial and territorial collaboration and is still being used as the primary reference document by many municipalities across the country. It promotes a values-based decision making process and is designed to provide a means of debating the relevance of a design decision beyond the “I like it” approach that continues to be popular in architectural journals.41 The Standards and Guidelines was one of three elements that federal tax policy analysts required as a prerequisite to considering a tax program like the one embedded in the American Tax Reform Act of 1976. The other two elements were a national register of designated heritage properties and a program to ensure credible certification for project eligibility and implementation. While short-term proxy contribution programs have tested the concepts, Canada has not yet adopted a tax incentive program. But the Standards and Guidelines provides an excellent framework for judging the appropriateness of interventions on historic places. The federal government, in enacting its Long Term Vision and Plan for the Parliamentary Precinct, has relied on this document for the evaluation of various projects that have taken place through the first decades of the twenty-first century. These include the award-winning West Block Rehabilitation and Wellington Building projects as well as the interim accommodations for the Senate in the former Government Conference Centre and earlier railway station in Ottawa. These projects prove that the document works well without stifling creativity. Unfortunately, without the carrot of tax credits, there is little incentive for private developers to follow either the standards or the guidelines. Unchallenged, misinterpretation is rife. Even when municipal heritage planners apply the document, politicians overturn their recommendations, deeming them “too strict,” a judgement that could be interpreted as “not loose enough” to satisfy the interests of local developers. Until there is a body of philosophical writings to provide guidance in interpreting the standards, particularly Standard 11 which concerns additions, as well as competentlytrained architects and reviewers, the use of the Standards and Guidelines document will yield uneven results. There is a leadership vacuum in championing built heritage and enabling its appropriate revitalization, despite enduring popular support and its symbiotic relationship to sustainability. As the second decade of the twenty-first century ended, cities across Canada face sustained continued development pressure, putting heritage assets at risk. Egregious examples of façadism are multiplying, even in Montreal where the activity has been virtually banished since the 1980s. Worse yet, they are being celebrated in architectural journals. At a time when our conservation tent has expanded to encompass much broader understanding and appreciation for many more voices, including those of Indigenous peoples, the political willingness to take substantive measures to protect heritage is uncertain and uneven.

41

Parks Canada, Standards and Guidelines.

5 Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950–2000

93

For example, in summarizing the federal Auditor-General’s 2018 report, the National Post pointed out that the three federal bodies responsible for more than twothirds of the government’s historic structures do not have adequate plans to protect them. National Defence, Fisheries and Oceans, and Parks Canada “don’t even have full lists of the buildings they own, let alone ways of keeping track of the condition of heritage buildings. Some buildings have crumbling bricks, no roofs and graffiti, and some are in real danger of collapsing, the latest report says.”42 Almost immediately, the government responded by stating: “Parks Canada will continue to work with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Department of National Defence, and other custodian departments to review the approach for designating federal heritage buildings and establish a consistent standard of heritage conservation across the federal government. These efforts are important steps for securing the future of Canada’s heritage places, now and for future generations.”43 It is dismaying to note that the annual report of the Vérificatrice générale du Québec for 2020–2021 echoes similar problems haunting and hampering the protection and mise-en-valeur of the province’s cultural property. This is a widespread problem across the country, stemming, as the report says, from a lack of leadership in the promotion and management of cultural heritage. Furthermore, the practice of conservation architecture remains uneven and increasingly disrespected. The federal government’s commitment to educating its workforce, unwavering since the creation in 1986 of the FHBRO training program for property and project managers, has petered out. Government reliance on outside consultants to replace its own employees may result in less knowledge of federal policies and training. Although there are a number of university and college opportunities for training architects, engineers, craftspeople and tradespeople, several of the courses, even those enjoying a long track record, have uncertain futures. Architectural associations across the country continue to dismiss conservation architecture as a legitimate specialization. Few government bodies require demonstration of expertise in bidding submissions, since doing so limits the number of firms that can compete to work on a heritage project.

5.9 My Wish List At the conclusion of the 2009 Round Table, each speaker was asked to provide a wish list for the future of conservation in Canada. In the following paragraphs, I provide mine. Despite the rather gloomy statements embedded in the previous paragraphs, my wish list is framed to be an exhortatory and positive call to arms. I want an app for that The heritage conservation industry has been quick to embrace digital recording methods, but has not yet used the power of the internet to 42

Canadian Press, “Feds don’t even know;” Office of the Auditor General, “Conserving Federal Heritage,” 2.18, 2.33. 43 Parks Canada, “Government of Canada’s Statement.”

94

J. Gersovitz

coordinate the matching of needs. For example, the issue of what to do with redundant and abandoned houses of worship and their community buildings is snowballing across the country, despite over four decades of discussion and studies. There appears to be no mechanism for uniting those organizations who need spaces for libraries, concert halls and auditoria with religious communities who have surplus space. While I doubt that anyone would develop an app to address this situation, some means to provide a forum for exchange or a clearing-house is needed. The houses of worship exist; they need new and compatible uses. This is both a sustainability and a heritage conservation imperative. I want leadership The history of the conservation movement is intrinsically linked to leadership—personal, political, or institutional. It is bracing to remember the pioneers, the champions, the enablers, because the object lesson of gain through action and commitment is powerful. It is important to accept that leadership takes different guises and paths. Alice Lighthall, when she decided to save the Hurtubise house in the mid-1950s, did so by convincing her acquaintances to buy the property. She did not chain herself to the railings of the house and demand radical change. She worked very much within the society to which she belonged. In 1973, at the Famous Players event announcing the demolition of the Capitol Theatre in Montreal, Audrey Bean, who came from the same sort of social background as Miss Lighthall, approached the model of the replacement tower and poured the contents of her champagne flute over it. The project was not stopped, but a gesture in the decade of protest had begun. Leadership, particularly political leadership when it comes to heritage conservation, is thin on the ground. We need to be vocal about the importance of heritage conservation and demand government policies that have real teeth to support it. We need a new, energized generation. I want expertise The United States, England, and France are all operating at a much higher level of professional expertise than in Canada. This is not because we are not capable of the same level; it is because it is not required. If governments demanded the expertise, the universities and technical programs would provide it. Students would then be encouraged to enroll in the programs. I want ethical behaviour Herb Stovel was, in his paper for the 2009 Round Table, very concerned about the lack of ethical behaviour on the part of some conservation experts whom he saw as being hired guns.44 It is time to enact a professional code of ethics and ensure that it has teeth for enforcement. I want alliances Heritage conservation is closely aligned with the sustainability movement. However, although aphorisms are increasingly chanted, such as American architect Carl Elefante’s statement that “the greenest building is the one that is already built,” the connection between sustainability and heritage is poorly disseminated to the general public. I want inclusive policies and outreach Heritage conservation is an umbrella that shelters diverse populations and diverse understandings. It is time to promote it as a movement that is not elitist, but fundamentally inclusive. It is time to ensure that 44

Stovel, “Training and Research,” 122–3.

5 Conserving Historic Places: Canadian Approaches from 1950–2000

95

the many voices that make up Canada are heard and their heritage protected, and the tools put in place to engage them in making the key decisions themselves. I want tax reform In the end, tax incentives may well be the most important desire of my wish list. If Canada were to have the same tax program as the United States, we would have the rehabilitation of countless properties across the country, the development of expertise equal to that in other countries, the genesis of jobs in trades, crafts and the professions, and finally the revitalization of downtowns. As of 2020, we have in place two of the four components necessary for success. We have pan-Canadian standards to guide the work and a national register of eligible historic places. We lack trained reviewing officers to certify projects, but we have the universities to train them. Finally, we lack the government leadership to enact heritage legislation and tax reform. Judged against the United States, Canada has over four decades of lost rehabilitation potential to catch up. Our future work can be exemplary, guided by the most current conservation standards and science-based guidelines, by sustainability principles, and by a broadened understanding of what constitutes heritage. We need this. Let’s get it. What a bright future will lie ahead!

Julia Gersovitz O.C. FRAIC, FAPT is a conservation architect, architectural historian, academic and heritage activist. As a founder of EVOQ Architecture, Julia has established an award winning reputation for both the design and theoretical basis of her projects. Recipient of the 2015 Gabrielle Léger Medal for Lifetime Achievement in Heritage Conservation, she was named an Officer of the Order of Canada in 2018. She is a Professor of Practice at McGill University and a professeure associée at the Université de Montréal.

Chapter 6

Conserving Cultural Landscapes Julian Smith

Abstract A growing interest in cultural landscape theory and practice reflects a wider twenty-first century shift towards ecological perspectives in planning and design. An immediate consequence is the challenge to the Eurocentric tendency to separate nature and culture. But at a deeper level, there is a need to challenge the separation between the obsession of the conservation field with the past, and of the contemporary planning and design field with the future. Cultural landscapes are best understood in the present, interpreted by the often diverse cultural groups that sustain them. Their conservation involves connecting past, present and future in ways that allow their ecological richness to survive and prosper. Keywords Cultural landscapes · Heritage landscapes · Cultural practices · Indigenous heritage · Nara document · Ecology

6.1 Introduction The adoption of the cultural landscape category by UNESCO in 1992 was significant not only because it broadened the reach of the World Heritage Convention. It was also an important part of a much deeper shift in the field of heritage conservation, away from a relatively static focus on isolated monuments of artistic and historical value to a more dynamic and ecological consideration of places and practices of cultural significance. The new perspective is “ecological” in the sense that the focus is no longer on objects per se, but on the nature of their interrelationships, both with each other and with their human and natural environments. The last decade of the twentieth century produced other relevant documents of note, including Chris Johnston’s 1992 discussion paper “What is Social Value?”

J. Smith (B) Julian Smith Architects, Westport, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Cameron (ed.), Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century, Creativity, Heritage and the City 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2_6

97

98

J. Smith

published by the Australian Heritage Commission, and the ICOMOS Nara Document on Authenticity drafted in 1994.1 The shift can conveniently be identified as a move from a twentieth-century paradigm to what is now an unfolding twenty-first century perspective. Although this is an oversimplification, the changes have been fundamental, involving a repositioning from a primarily Eurocentric and expert-driven approach, with relatively fixed values, to a community-based system where values are culturally-based and can be both flexible and contested.2 Gustavo Araoz, who championed this shift when he became President of ICOMOS in 2008, was vilified by some of his European colleagues for challenging the core ideology of the heritage conservation field.3 However, the shift has opened up important discussions about the key issues and questions of the twenty-first century: cultural diversity, intangible heritage, sustainable habitats, Indigenous and traditional knowledge, the nature/culture journey. Without this shift, the heritage conservation field would exist in a box of shrinking relevance and activity. This chapter looks at the nature of this shift, particularly in a Canadian context. It examines the role of cultural landscape theory and practice as an organizing principle for these new perspectives. It then discusses approaches to identifying and conserving cultural landscapes in Canada.

6.2 The Twentieth-Century Paradigm Alastair Kerr spoke to the 2010 Montreal Round Table about the problems of adapting the primary discourse of architectural conservation to cultural landscapes.4 He was right. It continues to be very difficult to adapt a system designed to identify and protect remnants of the past to places where the past, the present and the future are intricately intertwined. The end of history The idea of focusing on remnants of the past is very much consistent with the twentieth-century modernist perspective that history is over, that “the past is a foreign country,” to use David Lowenthal’s phrase.5 The tenets of modernism and the tenets of historic preservation in the twentieth century functioned as two sides of the same coin. The trauma of World War I had confirmed the fact that the dark forces of tribalism, and its ongoing cultural and historical narratives, needed to be replaced with something more universal and timeless. Modernism offered a fresh start and the possibility of an entirely new set of assumptions.

1

Johnston, What is Social Value; ICOMOS, Nara. Mason and Avrami, “Heritage Values,” 13–26. 3 Araoz, “Protecting Heritage Places;” Araoz, “Preserving Heritage Places,” 55–60; Petzet, International Principles, 1–46; ICOMOS Austria et al., “Fundamental values. ” 4 Kerr, “British Columbia’s Cultural Landscapes,” 73–87. 5 Lowenthal, The Past. 2

6 Conserving Cultural Landscapes

99

At the same time, as the rather abrupt and wholesale changes brought about by the modernist movement caused angst and bewilderment, it was considered reasonable to save remnants of this historical past as a kind of living museum and touchstone of human achievements in prior centuries. The heritage conservation movement accepted this role, its charters and principles based on protecting this inheritance and passing it on for future generations to witness. This was really a museum function, a stewardship role in protecting relics of the past. The relationship between the museum world and the broader built environment is well reflected in the title of the first major conservation text in North America: Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World, by James Marston Fitch.6 Even nature was to some extent subsumed, although with considerably more difficulty, into this view of an inherited and rather messy, even sinister, set of forces that needed to be controlled and molded. As Le Corbusier said in his famous dictum, “Order is the manifestation of mankind… a struggle against Nature, to conquer her, to sort things out, to make life comfortable and, in brief, to live in a human world which is not the stronghold of hostile Nature: our world of geometrical order.”7 And yet there was also the grudging acceptance, by the modernists, that certain wilderness areas might be set aside, with clear boundaries, as controlled evidence of this “hostile Nature” at work. The World Heritage Convention appears to be reasonably comfortable within this counterpoint to modernism—a worldwide effort to locate and protect outstanding remnant examples from both cultural and natural history. Their protection is justified because around them the new world order is being implemented. A utopian conceit This new world order, as defined by the modernist tradition, is utopian at its core. It is about the future, not the present. It is dependent on the visioning exercise, the articulation of the ideal, the definition of roles and categories and hierarchies. It is an approach to urban and rural planning based on official plans and zoning bylaws. It is “our world of geometrical order,” to use Le Corbusier’s phrase. Historic places can be conveniently slotted into this utopian framework as places of curiosity and wonderment that remind us of that time when history was still alive. Built into the heritage field is the assumption that there is a logical process from identification to designation to conservation that results in the fully-conserved artifact, ready to take its place as a museum piece in the modernist utopian framework. Museum objects clearly fit this paradigm. So do historic buildings. To a limited extent, so do urban historic districts when they are defined as carefully-managed aggregations of historic buildings. So do historic gardens and landscapes. The very terms “historic” and “contemporary” conveniently divide the components of the built environment into those that are witness to history and those that reflect present and future realities. I live in a “historic” building, you live in a “contemporary” building. This is an understandable distinction to most people.

6 7

Fitch, Historic Preservation. Le Corbusier, “The New Spirit,” 132.

100

J. Smith

The case of historic gardens and landscapes Although the ICOMOS Florence Charter on Historic Gardens recognizes that there was an inevitable evolution of plant material in garden settings, it firmly sets historic gardens and landscapes within the twentieth-century paradigm. Article 1 states that “a historic garden is an architectural and horticultural composition of interest to the public from the historical or artistic point of view. As such, it is to be considered as a monument.”8 Historical and artistic values are static values assigned by conservation experts. These values are fundamental to the twentieth-century paradigm, expressed in the writings of Riegl, Brandi and others.9 Ongoing influences This twentieth-century paradigm is very much alive. Utopian ideas still underlie most urban planning theories and practices, and are clearly reflected in the focus on official plans and zoning bylaws—prescriptions for an idealized future. The same is true of the architectural field. Although architects such as Rem Koolhaas are sometimes labelled as post-modern, their theories fit comfortably into the idea of creating a contemporary utopia, with space set aside for some preserved remnants of the past.10 It is both appropriate and ironic that it is museums, both new museums and the transformations of existing museums, that continue to represent the most glamorous commissions for these architects.11 The creation of modern warehouses for ancient artifacts is a comfortable meeting ground for bringing opposites together. The dichotomy remains intact.

6.3 An Emerging Twenty-First-Century Paradigm Three documents from the end of the twentieth-century are mentioned above as signalling the shift to a new reality. The first is Chris Johnston’s paper on social value. Its significance is that it proposes that a new consideration be added to questions of artistic and historical value.12 While the experts can be counted on to define artistic and historical relevance, based on research and comparative analysis, the question of social value is much harder to pin down. It requires listening to the community or communities within which the place has cultural meaning. Once that process begins, it can bring into question the research methods for defining the artistic and historical values. The research findings of a dominant culture can easily miss the current realities and perspectives of other cultural groups.

8

ICOMOS, Historic Gardens, art. 1. Riegl, Der moderne Denmalkultus, 69–83; Brandi, Teoria, 1–164. 10 Koolhaas, Preservation. 11 See for example Henderson, Museum Architecture. Notable examples include the Pompidou Centre (1977), the Kunsthal in Rotterdam (1992), the Bilbao Museum (1997), and the Jewish Museum in Berlin (2001) in the careers of Renzo Piano and Richard Rogers, Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas and Daniel Libeskind, respectively. 12 Johnston, What is Social Value. 9

6 Conserving Cultural Landscapes

101

The question of social value has created new areas of rich research findings and compelling perspectives on significance. An example is Indigenous cultural heritage that often exists in artistic and historical frameworks not based on Eurocentric models. Social value implies an assessment that looks at present-day realities, not just historical patterns. As such, it suggests a more dynamic understanding of value that calls into question some of the more static assumptions of the twentieth century. The Nara Document on Authenticity, which appeared a few years after Chris Johnston’s discussion paper, is one of the most beautifully written of any of the ICOMOS or UNESCO charters and conventions. The terms “authenticity” and “integrity” are fundamental to the World Heritage Committee’s assessment of value when considering sites for the World Heritage List. The distinction between them is often not well understood, but as the Nara Document makes clear, it is the question of authenticity that is at the heart of finding a way forward. The Nara Document points out that the cultural context that has produced and sustained a place is the context within which values must be determined. Since the world has such cultural diversity, one can only assume that identifications of value will be similarly diverse. Otherwise they will be lacking in authenticity. The Nara Document on Authenticity has several articles that speak directly to this issue: • The diversity of cultures and heritage in our world is an irreplaceable source of spiritual and intellectual richness for all humankind (article 5); • Cultural heritage diversity exists in time and space, and demands respect for other cultures and all aspects of their belief systems. In cases where cultural values appear to be in conflict, respect for cultural diversity demands acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the cultural values of all parties (article 6); • All judgements about values attributed to cultural properties as well as the credibility of related information sources may differ from culture to culture, and even within the same culture. It is thus not possible to base judgements of values and authenticity within fixed criteria. On the contrary, the respect due to all cultures requires that heritage properties must be considered and judged within the cultural contexts to which they belong (article 11).13 These statements are a far cry from the assumed legitimacy of well-established and generally Eurocentric models of academic and professional authority. The Nara Document reflects what Chris Johnston had asked, namely the importance of social value not only as a value in itself but as a framework within which artistic and historical value must be understood. This takes us to the third reference, the 1992 adoption by UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee of the cultural landscape category, a way to recognize places resulting from the interaction of humankind and the natural environment. This decision gave the cultural landscape concept an official imprimatur. This recognition was important for several reasons. It acknowledged that separating “culture” and “nature,” as had been done in establishing the framework of the World Heritage Convention, 13

ICOMOS, Nara.

102

J. Smith

was not always an appropriate assumption. It allowed some of the ecological ideas, so fundamental to the assessment of natural sites, to become part of the evaluation of cultural sites. It furthered the sense that not only the values ascribed to a site, but the site itself, could be dynamic rather than static. These ideas were not easily absorbed into the mainstream practices of heritage conservation. The cultural landscape category has often been used as simply a slight change in nomenclature for what the Florence Charter had described as historic gardens and landscapes. But the cultural landscape category is a very different concept, drawn primarily from cultural geography, anthropology and human ecology, and not from art history, garden history or rural landscape studies. The fullness of the UNESCO cultural landscape concept can be seen in its definition of three primary categories within the general term. “Designed” cultural landscapes are intentional human-made places usually associated with a single designer, often created for artistic effect. “Evolved” cultural landscapes are created over time from a shared social, economic, administrative and/or religious imperative, in response to a natural environment. “Associative” cultural landscapes achieve their primary significance from powerful religious, artistic and/or cultural associations and may or may not have significant material cultural evidence.14 Many of the historic gardens and landscapes of the Florence Charter are most easily included in the “designed” category. However, it is the other two categories—“evolved” and “associative”—that mark a much deeper shift in thinking to twenty-first-century paradigms. In practice, the most compelling category of the UNESCO framework—associative cultural landscapes—has been used predominantly for Indigenous places of cultural significance such as Uluru-Kata Tjuta in Australia.15 This is an important first step, but in time the associative quality will be understood as the most important feature of all cultural landscapes. They exist first and foremost as places in the cultural imagination. The physical manifestations are important but are understood and kept alive by recognizing these cultural associations and the practices that sustain them. One can talk about the aesthetic and historic qualities of beautiful agrarian landscapes, for example, but unless one understands them from the perspective of the local farming community, as well as from the perspective of other communities of interest such as urban second-home visitors and tourists, they cannot be adequately sustained. This is particularly true when the local communities involved are marginalized or culturally distinct. Dolores Hayden, an early advocate for a broader understanding of the layered urban experience, uses the term “cultural landscape” in this larger sense. Her book The Power of Place focuses on the evolved and associative cultural landscapes of marginalized communities as the first step towards conservation.16 What she is after has little to do with historic gardens or landscapes, but it does have to do with Johnston’s social value. 14

UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2019,” annex 3, par. 6–10. Australia ICOMOS, Report, 10. 16 Hayden, The Power of Place. 15

6 Conserving Cultural Landscapes

103

The Nara Document also supports the idea that cultural landscapes must be understood culturally—not just artistically or historically. The use of the adjective “cultural” is fundamental to the concept. It requires the cultural community involved to explain how the place has emerged as the result of cultural ideas and practices. It allows multiple cultural landscapes to co-exist in places where multiple cultural communities exist, each one delineated and understood by its own ideas and practices. It allows these places to be dynamic in order to sustain their authenticity, with physical boundaries and patterns that may evolve in order to keep intangible cultural values alive.

6.4 Moving Forward The cultural landscape concept is still evolving. It is most easily associated with larger geographical terrains, particularly rural areas or parkland settings, where the interaction of human beings and nature is seen to be in some kind of comfortable balance. However, dense urban landscapes are equally important expressions of human adaptation to the natural world. Significant cultural landscapes can exist at almost any scale. Places of religious importance are often miniature cultural landscapes representing the cultural landscape of the cosmos.17 The significance of such places is both tangible and intangible, created and sustained by cultural practices, values and aspirations. Cultural practices are continuous, and provide one of the key links between past, present and future. The interior of the Duomo in Milan, for example, is a designed cultural landscape of significance, inscribed in the public imagination by centuries of religious worship. The repository for this significance is not just the stones and stained glass windows. It is also the collective expression of religious faith, over time, through the spoken word and through music. Such significance is never static. This particular cultural landscape took on a new dimension on Easter morning in April 2020, in the middle of the COVID-19 crisis, when Andrea Bocelli stood in the middle of the empty cathedral, with only an organist to accompany him, and sang Panis Angelicus, Ave Maria, Sancta Maria and Domine Deus to an unseen virtual audience of more than twenty million.18 Cultural landscapes resist being associated solely with the past or the future. For many experts, this is problematic. The modernists have taken the future to be theirs to craft, and the preservationists have taken the past to be theirs to interpret. This works well if both operate in isolation. Cultural landscape theory and practice force the two to be connected through the present. Is it any wonder that the term cultural landscape creates confusion and resistance? The resistance comes from both directions. The modernists attack Prince Charles for his observations on the relevance of

17 18

See for example Smith, “Madurai, India.” Davison, “31 million people.”

104

J. Smith

traditional building, architecture and urbanism to contemporary design challenges,19 and the preservationists attack former ICOMOS President Gustavo Araoz for the same reason. The cultural landscape framework provides a way of moving forward by moving out of the dichotomy entirely. The results of the framework are not yet predictable, because the experts who are in charge of the prognosis are not going to be the ones who will decide what happens. This is frustrating for many who have been in positions of influence and control, but it is the inevitability of a twenty-first-century focus on the sustainability of human life on the planet. That sustainability does not come from investing more and more resources into preserving monuments from the past, nor into developing utopian designs for new buildings and communities. It should be noted that labelling utopian designs as “green” or “sustainable” is no solution. These labels simply cloak the modernist goal of rupturing and then recreating the world in some idealized form, undermining the intricate ecology of the planet in the process. The way the cultural landscape idea challenges both narrow conceptions of preservation and naïve assumptions about utopian redevelopment may help explain why it has been embraced by many people in Indigenous communities. The nature of these challenges is evident in the arguments supporting the inclusion of Pimachiowin Aki (Canada) on the World Heritage List.20 It was not outstanding by any traditional aesthetic or historical norms, nor was it ecologically significant from a pure natural systems perspective. It was about the intimacy and integrity of the relationships between people, places, and practices in this particular landscape over several millennia. This nomination was, at its core, a post-modernist manifesto, about as far from Le Corbusier’s “hostile Nature” as it is possible to get.21 Much of the discussion of cultural landscapes has been about the convergence of nature and culture. But this is not the only issue. Historic gardens and landscapes have always considered the ecological dynamic of living systems. Moreover, the study of natural areas has not been immune to the influence of the human species. Rather, I would argue that UNESCO recognizes that there is a pressure to deal with the contemporary role of cultural and natural history in a post-modern world. Cultural landscapes are by definition integrated into the very fabric of contemporary life. But herein lies a problem. We can take history, and with it cultural identity, tribalism and all the positive and negative accoutrements of cultural narratives, out of its well-protected and isolated boxes within the modernist framework. But when we put it once more right in the middle of contemporary social, economic and political discussions, we can find ourselves returning to all the darkest forms of cultural identity politics. We can return to the terrible situations from which the modernists were so anxious to break free. Cultural landscapes are a great way to do that— large-scale canvases on which we can “Make America Great Again” with Trump, or “Make India Great Again” with Modi, or “Make Russia Great Again” with Putin. These leaders, perhaps indirectly, are using the cultural landscape argument to give 19

See for example Shute, “Prince Charles.” UNESCO, “Pimachiowin Aki.” 21 Le Corbusier, “The New Spirit,” 132. 20

6 Conserving Cultural Landscapes

105

history a new and powerful role in contemporary society. They call on us to recreate the vibrant historic industrial landscapes and beautiful agrarian landscapes of North America, the utopian Hindu cultural landscapes of India, or the Orthodox Christian cultural landscapes of Russia. These are people who are quite prepared to embrace a seemingly post-modernist worldview to the extent that it is a new embrace of history. But these are still utopian visions (and false histories). An ecologically-attuned cultural landscape concept provides a richer and more accommodating alternative. Those cultural landscapes that were utopian in the first place—such as Versailles— are generally designed landscapes and should always be referred to as historic landscapes because their function was completely embraced within their historical period and they are now valued only as remnants. But almost all evolved and associative cultural landscapes represent, in their vitality and richness, an organic process of development. If we can learn to adopt an organic rather than utopian framework for their management and ongoing care, we have some chance to work towards a positive future. Organic development can be messy, but it embraces messiness. It recognizes that ecological health is dependent on resilience, not rigidity. Marshlands are messy, and so are vibrant older urban neighborhoods that welcome immigrants and understand diversity. Cultural landscapes, understood organically, do not have fixed and singular boundaries. They can fluctuate, and there may be multiple boundaries defined separately by the various cultural groups that occupy them. They have to be mapped by the people who experience them. They cannot be understood by the casual observer. The visitor and the inhabitant occupy separate cultural landscapes. They overlap, certainly, but they must not be given a utopian framework of convergence.

6.5 Cultural Landscapes in Canada What has been the Canadian experience? It is a complicated question because of the surprisingly widespread disconnect between theory and practice. Cultural landscape theory In terms of theory, Canadians have been closely involved in national and international conversations about cultural landscapes for more than thirty years. Jacques Dalibard helped foster an interest in cultural landscape ideas within Parks Canada, Heritage Canada, and ICOMOS in the 1970s and 1980s, even before the label had been imported from cultural geography into the heritage conservation field. In 1988, the author used a cultural landscape framework in designing the curriculum for the Carleton University M.A. program in heritage conservation, and a year later included a cultural landscape category in his proposal for a Built Heritage Policy for the National Capital Commission in Ottawa. Susan Buggey, one of the creators of the cultural landscape category for UNESCO in 1992, was a major figure in discussions in Canada and abroad throughout this period. She, Linda Dicaire, John Zvonar and others have played important roles on the ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes. Herb Stovel was the

106

J. Smith

instigator of discussions within ICOMOS that led to the Nara Document on Authenticity, and was its co-author.22 He went on to teach a cultural landscape perspective as a professor at ICCROM and Carleton University. Lisa Prosper’s paper for the George Wright Forum on rethinking the value of cultural landscapes from an Indigenous perspective was one of her early contributions in a career that has continually raised pertinent questions on how we understand cultural landscapes.23 She has had a significant voice in the ICOMOS/IUCN culture-nature journey. Philippe PoullaouecGonidec and his colleagues at the Chair in Landscape and Environmental Design at the University of Montreal have worked on broad landscape policy issues for the Government of Quebec. Christina Cameron has been at the forefront of national and international discussions throughout this period, at Parks Canada, at the University of Montreal, and as chair of several expert meetings at World Heritage where much of the critical intellectual debate has taken place. There have been other initiatives in Canada. Willowbank, a non-profit postsecondary program in traditional building, architecture and urbanism, established a Centre for Cultural Landscape in 2012 with Lisa Prosper as its first director. ICOMOS Canada conducted a year-long conversation on landscape in 2016–2017. Many Canadians, particularly First Nations members and advocates, were involved in the nomination of Pimachiowin Aki to UNESCO’s World Heritage List, one of the most significant and challenging nominations of a cultural landscape for consideration by the World Heritage Committee and its advisory bodies. The site was inscribed on the list in 2018.24 Most of this focus on the theoretical development of the cultural landscape concept has taken place at the end of the twentieth century and the opening decades of the twenty-first century. It has helped the emergence of a new paradigm, particularly for young professionals in the field. Cultural landscape practice At the same time, the legislative context and much of the related professional practice in Canada remain mostly rooted in what can only be considered an out-dated twentieth-century context. Given the federal nature of the Canadian constitutional framework, responsibility for property—and, by extension, for the design and development of human habitats—has rested almost entirely with the provinces. As a result, there is no comprehensive national approach to heritage conservation in either theory or practice. Despite this reality, a framework for a shared federal/provincial/territorial engagement, known as the Historic Places Initiative, was launched at the very beginning of the twenty-first century under Christina Cameron’s leadership. But it has yet to live up to its potential. Its provisions for federal tax incentives for conservation have never been realized, although parts of the framework—specifically a Canadian Register of Historic Places and a set of Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada—have been developed.25 22

Cameron and Inaba, “The Making of the Nara Document,” 30–7. Prosper, “Wherein Lies the Heritage Value,” 117–24. 24 UNESCO, “Pimachiowin Aki.” 25 Parks Canada, “Canadian Register;” Parks Canada, Standards and Guidelines. 23

6 Conserving Cultural Landscapes

107

Ontario has been a disappointing partner within this larger federal/provincial/territorial initiative. The province has both refused to sign the second edition of the Standards and Guidelines, introduced a restrictive cultural landscape framework, and has instead implemented its own standards and guidelines document with a much more limited scope. The Ontario Heritage Act, its most important tool for defining conservation activity in the province, was originally passed in 1975 as a community-based framework for identifying and managing significant cultural resources. Its definitions were broad enough to include architecture and landscape, tangible and intangible heritage, and community-based definitions of authenticity. But in 2005, it underwent a major revision and became a more restrictive, building-focused, expert-driven framework. The word “landscape” is nowhere to be found. This was an unfortunate reversion to twentieth-century paradigms by Canada’s most populous province, just as the twenty-first century was upon us. Other provinces have also been slow to move from a focus on monuments, mostly buildings, either alone or in urban districts, which have been shown to have artistic and historical value. The problem may be that legislation by nature is often designed from a legal perspective that prizes the expert voice and the win/lose nature of the legal system, rather than the more conciliatory and community-based approaches of consensual dispute resolution methods. Only Quebec has specifically included heritage cultural landscapes in its Cultural Heritage Act of 2012. In both its definition of the term, and the steps required for designation, emphasis is given to the voice of the community in recognizing cultural significance.26 This recognition builds on a broader inquiry into landscape by Quebec over the years, beginning with the Deschambault Declaration in 1982.27 There are other ways in which cultural landscape ideas and new ways of understanding the heritage field are emerging slowly in official policy documents. Because of quiet action by Indigenous communities and others outside the formal heritage process, a generic cultural heritage landscape category has been included in recent versions of Ontario’s Provincial Policy Statement,28 a broad policy document related to planning matters. It remains to be seen how this will play out in the longer term. British Columbia has a “healthy communities” initiative that uses an ecological approach to human habitat. It will be important to see how this affects traditional heritage practice. Newfoundland and Labrador have been exploring a cultural landscape framework for revised heritage conservation legislation. Overall, however, Canada’s contributions in theory and practice to emerging twenty-first-century heritage conservation paradigms are not yet reflected in the nation’s formal legislative and policy frameworks.

26

Québec, “Cultural Heritage Act,” III, div. III. ICOMOS Canada, Charter for the Preservation of Quebec’s Heritage. 28 Ontario, Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, 42. 27

108

J. Smith

6.6 Conserving Cultural Landscapes in Canada Working outside the formal boundaries of the field What then is the path forward in Canada, as we reflect on these new currents? Given the rather widespread disconnect between theory and practice in Canada, it is possible that the identification and management of cultural landscapes will happen outside the boundaries of formal, government-regulated heritage conservation practice. This is particularly true of evolved and associative cultural landscapes, but even in the case of a designed cultural landscape the government and the courts have been reluctant to embrace a cultural landscape concept.29 This is in part due to a hesitation to include patterns of use as an integral part of how these sites are identified and managed. When the cultural landscape section was being developed for the second edition of the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, some Indigenous community representatives proposed “traditional practices” as one of the potential character-defining elements of such a place. But this was changed to “evidence of traditional practice” in the final document, avoiding a direct connection to use.30 Quebec may prove to be an exception, in part because heritage cultural landscapes are identified in the legislation as important sources of cultural identity, an area of stronger government engagement in Quebec than in other provinces. Newfoundland and Labrador also shares some of these interests in the relationships between landscape and cultural practice, and it is possible that there will be corresponding developments in legislation and policy. However, even with government support of the cultural landscape concept, the theoretical models are not easily integrated into existing systems. The policies on identification and assessment generally assume a one-to-one correspondence between a set of cultural values and a place with fixed boundaries. When Montreal embarked on detailed studies of Mount Royal, the research efforts identified many different cultural landscapes with different boundaries. However, these were then synthesized into a single unified concept and boundary for legal designation as an “arrondissement historique et naturel” in 2005.31 The cultural landscape category in the Canadian Register of Historic Places requires boundary definitions, not always easily applied to a place that exists simultaneously on the ground and in the cultural imagination. There is also the question of whether official recognition of an evolved or associative cultural landscape can mark the beginning of a decline in local value. Unlike monuments, which are often self-consciously emblematic, cultural landscapes are often more deeply embedded in the cultural imagination through patterns of use. This less self-conscious but more essential relationship between a community and

29

The ongoing dispute about Glen Abbey golf course in Oakville is a case in point. See Perkel, “Glen Abbey owners.” 30 Parks Canada, Standards and Guidelines, 55–8. 31 Valois, Évolution historique, 7.

6 Conserving Cultural Landscapes

109

its environment can begin to be undone by the physical and psychological consequences of tourism and other external interventions. The identification and designation of cultural landscapes can also bring a static quality to what has traditionally been an evolving environment. The human ecology of an area is a subtle quality that is difficult to qualify and quantify. Examples of this challenge in Canada include the Byward Market area in Ottawa32 and the Kensington Market area in Toronto.33 In both cases, legislated heritage protection can represent a shift from an informal, ecological, and community-based form of development to something mis-managed by well-meaning but disconnected external experts. The initial move to heritage designation is often a critical step to prevent unwanted interventions, and even widespread demolition, but it is the slow consequences over the longer term that are much harder to manage. The twentieth-century emphasis on artistic and historical values has privileged those values that reside in the physical fabric of a place. In cultural landscapes, the cultural value may also reside in a delicate relationship between a people and a place that requires physical evolution over time. Parks Canada has worked with Indigenous communities to develop nationallydesignated areas as cultural landscapes. In some cases, these communities have moved away from the cultural landscape framework in the World Heritage system, developed primarily by ICOMOS, to the protected landscapes/seascapes category developed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). IUCN defines this category as “an area where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value: and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values.”34 What is compelling about this definition is that it not only recognizes the interaction between a cultural community and a place as being fundamental to its understanding but also points out that “the integrity of this interaction” remains vital to its conservation. None of the legislation or policy frameworks in Canada, even in Quebec, speak to the integrity of the interaction. They speak only to the integrity of the place. Modifying the formal instruments and the related forms of professional practice The more challenging path forward is adapting heritage legislation and practice to the new twenty-first-century paradigms. This will be resisted because it will necessarily entail the end of a separate heritage conservation field as it is currently known and understood. To properly address the key issues raised at the beginning of this chapter—cultural diversity, intangible heritage, sustainable habitats, Indigenous and traditional knowledge, the nature/culture journey—it is necessary to fold cultural heritage concerns into larger issues of healthy and sustainable communities. During Bob Rae’s tenure as Premier of Ontario in the 1990s, draft legislation was prepared to combine the 32

Smith et al., Byward Market. Smith et al., Kensington Market. 34 Dudley, Guidelines, 20. 33

110

J. Smith

Heritage Act and the Planning Act into a single framework for community development. But experts on both sides of the divide never embraced the idea, the natural inclination being to protect their own turf. British Columbia’s healthy communities initiative, mentioned above, has yet to become a legal framework for legislative and policy initiatives. It should be said however that west coast cities in both Canada and the United States are about a generation ahead of cities in central Canada and eastern United States in integrating heritage, planning and environmental issues at the municipal level, an important head start in moving towards a framework for managing cultural landscapes. Indigenous communities will continue to have a key role to play in developing a more integrated approach. As Michelle Poirier of the Algonquin First Nation has pointed out, until we move from thinking that we should protect nature to understanding that we are nature, the culture/nature journey will be a difficult one. She is right. This is a fundamental shift from a Eurocentric worldview and yet an important starting point for ecological sensitivity. It is important to note that the word “ecology” has been co-opted by the nature conservation field to apply to virtually everything in the planet’s ecosystem except for the human species. This is the problem that Ms. Poirier is pointing out. Until we subsume the human species, and our human habitats, into this broader ecological framework, we will never succeed in formulating a sustainable path forward. In time, there will almost certainly be a shift in both the formal and informal approaches to the conservation of cultural landscapes. There will be better approaches to collecting information from communities in ways that do not prejudice the outcome. Cognitive mapping is one promising tool of this kind, if done broadly and with as little self-consciousness as possible. There will be new means of registering important cultural landscapes in ways that recognize overlapping realities and multiple boundaries, and that allow change over time.35 There will be new tools that allow organic development practices, and that remove the reliance on official plans and zoning bylaws. These changes will allow the sustainability of a wider array of values—social, economic, and environmental, as well as artistic and historical—through coordinated approaches. The conservation of traditional design/build skills, for example, may require both changes to building codes and permit provisions as well as imaginative microfinancing schemes for marginalized communities. Education and training practices across a wide spectrum of disciplines will need to be redesigned and better integrated. Cultural landscape theory and practice will, by necessity, become part of every architecture, urban design and planning program that promises to address sustainable design (Fig. 6.1).

35

See for example Rudolff, Intangible and Tangible Heritage.

6 Conserving Cultural Landscapes

111

Fig. 6.1 Cognitive mapping in the form of a kolam, from Madurai, South India. These kinds of drawings provide both physical and cultural understandings of place. Drawing by Julian Smith

6.7 Conclusion Although this is a time of real struggle as the heritage conservation field adapts to its new realities, there is an emerging generation of professionals who are willing and able to take up the challenge. These are people who have been discussing sustainability and ecology since childhood, in ways that older generations never did, and who know that there is an urgency to redesigning our world and the systems—economic, social, political—that we use to make decisions. One of the reasons for the growing importance of non-profit organizations is their ability to be part of redesigning the world with a flexibility and immediacy not available in the public, private or academic sectors. Young people are being drawn to the non-profit sector in record numbers. And they do not shy away from messiness, in the best ecological sense of that word. The 2018 ICOMOS Canada emerging professional award-winner, Mallory Wilson, a graduate of the University of Montreal Masters program, is a good example.36 She used a non-profit framework to connect the conservation of existing buildings with social justice initiatives, reinventing the field as she went. This is the kind of person we can entrust with understanding and managing urban cultural landscapes of significance. In my teaching at Willowbank, I see a similar ability among this emerging generation to understand the relationship between experience and observation, between the view from inside and the view from outside, and from this, the ability to recognize the possibility of layered realities. UNESCO defines the Historic Urban Landscape in its 2011 Recommendation as “the urban area understood as the result of a 36

ICOMOS Canada, “Mallory Wilson.”

112

J. Smith

historic layering of cultural and natural values and attributes.”37 The same can be said of cultural landscapes more generally. Layering can be messy, especially for the expert. But it can also be wonderful, and ecological. The role of the expert is to find the balance and the order within the messiness—to provide a way forward to an ecological understanding of the world, which in turn provides a basis for sustainable management. Fifty years ago, both Rachel Carson and Jane Jacobs pinpointed this need.38 Both of them were vilified as unqualified and annoying females who had no right to be questioning the wisdom of their male colleagues.39 It is time we gave them their due. They were ecologists in the best and broadest sense of the term. More than ten years after the 2010 Montreal Round Table on conserving cultural landscapes, we are still struggling to define a twenty-first-century path forward for the heritage conservation field. I would say now, as then, that the state of cultural landscape theory and practice is as good a place as any to measure our progress. My verdict: progress is slow, but the path is leading in the right direction.

Julian Smith was Chief Architect for the National Historic Sites program at Parks Canada. He subsequently created his own architectural and planning practice, and has worked on culturallysignificant sites in North America, Europe and Asia. He established the graduate program in Heritage Conservation at Carleton University, and later developed the Willowbank School and Centre for Cultural Landscape in Niagara. He was a contributing author of the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.

37

UNESCO, Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, art. 8. Carson, Silent Spring; Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. 39 Evidence of anti-feminist attitudes is found in publications about Carson and Jacobs. With regard to Rachel Carson: “In 1962 the multi-million dollar industrial chemical industry was not about to allow a former government editor, a female scientist without a Ph.D. or an institutional affiliation, to undermine public confidence in its products or to question its integrity.” See Lear, “Introduction,” xvii. With regard to Jane Jacobs: “Jacobs’ early attention-getting articles in Architectural Forum and Fortune Magazine happened because she had as a champion a distinguished male editor William Holly Whyte. Whyte gained fame for writing The Organization Man and for espousing ideas similar to hers. But he had to overcome a sputtering, angry Fortune publisher who once asked, “Who is this crazy dame?” A housewife without even a college degree was unacceptable. After all, Lewis Mumford’s scathing review of Death and Life was headlined ‘Mother Jacobs Home Remedies’.” See Gratz, “Jane Jacobs.” 38

Chapter 7

Sustainable Heritage-in-Practice: Relationships, Goals, Localization and Models Susan M. Ross

Abstract This chapter expands on the discussion at the 2011 Montreal Round Table on The Impact of Sustainability Strategies on Heritage Conservation Practices. The Montreal meetings fostered insight into the rapidly evolving wider international context of the heritage-and-sustainability discourse, revealing a back-and-forth dynamic between the global and the local, contributing to a constant re-examination of the discipline’s knowledge base and goals. Consideration of this global/local interface is also key to defining and modelling effective and inspiring sustainable heritage practices. The chapter reviews important developments in sustainability-toheritage interactions in theory and policy, converging on expanded goals for sustainable heritage conservation identified about 2015. Selected opportunities for sustainability and stewardship are discussed in two examples of localized urban conservation and planning practices that were presented at the 2011 meeting: Green Energy Benny Farm in Montreal, and University of British Columbia’s UBC Renew program and the Buchanan Building in Vancouver. This reflection contributes constructive perspectives to future contexts of integrated sustainable heritage and conservation practice. Borrowing on findings from the study of sustainability-in-practice, it is proposed that sustainable-heritage-in-practice needs to be holistic, collaborative, and process-oriented while striving to balance complex and shifting goals. Keywords Sustainable heritage · Practice models · Relationships · Localization · Montreal · Vancouver

7.1 Introduction This chapter expands on the issues and perspectives discussed at the sixth Montreal Round Table held in March 2011, entitled The Impact of Sustainability Strategies on Heritage Conservation Practices.1 The author has been immersed in the North 1

Cameron and Dailoo, Impact of Sustainability Strategies, 1–256.

S. M. Ross (B) School of Indigenous and Canadian Studies and School of Architecture and Urbanism, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Cameron (ed.), Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century, Creativity, Heritage and the City 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2_7

113

114

S. M. Ross

American discussions on sustainable heritage conservation since the early 2000s.2 She also participated in most of the Montreal Round Tables from 2011 to 2018.3 The Montreal meetings fostered insight into the rapidly evolving wider international context of the heritage-and-sustainability discourse. Attending these meetings underlined a back-and-forth dynamic between the global and the local, contributing to a constant re-examination of the discipline’s knowledge base and goals. Consideration of this global/local interface is also key to defining and modelling effective and inspiring sustainable heritage practices.4 Given the latest expansions—even revolutions—of both sustainability and heritage approaches, this chapter reviews recent important developments in sustainability-to-heritage interactions in theory and policy, converging on expanded goals for sustainable heritage conservation identified about 2015. It then discusses select opportunities for sustainability and stewardship as revealed in two examples of localized urban conservation and planning practices that were presented at the 2011 meeting. The hope is that this reflection will contribute constructive perspectives to future contexts of integrated sustainable heritage and conservation practice. Borrowing on findings from the study of sustainability-in-practice, which examines “priorities, policies, and strategic practices of organizations and practitioners that explicitly purport to be advancing the goals and objectives of sustainability,” it is proposed that sustainable heritage-in-practice needs to be holistic, collaborative and process-oriented while striving to balance complex and shifting goals.5

7.2 Defining Sustainability-to-Heritage Relationships: Is It Reciprocal or a Seat at the Table? The relationship between heritage and sustainability needs definition in order to understand the influence of each field of action and articulate areas of strategic mutual importance. An ideal relationship is assumed to possess reciprocal interaction, but full balance is often not possible. Can relationships between sustainability and heritage be reciprocal or is heritage conservation looking for a seat at the sustainable development table? In recent years, both heritage conservation and sustainable development have expanded their meanings, but both are still elusive to define precisely. On the one hand, the term sustainability now often replaces sustainable development. In 2

This was mainly through her work with the Technical Committee on Sustainable Preservation of the Association for Preservation Technology. An early example of the discussion in this context is the series of articles in Bulletin for the Association of Preservation Technology 36, no. 4 (2005). Powter and Ross, “Integrating Environmental,” 5–11. 3 From March 2014 to December 2018, the author brought a group of students from Carleton University to the meetings. 4 For an early exchange on this see Teutonico and Matero, Managing Change. 5 Reed and Massie, “What’s Left?” 200.

7 Sustainable Heritage-in-Practice: Relationships, Goals, Localization …

115

combining this with environmental, social, economic and/or cultural qualifiers to define sustainability’s foundational pillars, the concept is then oriented towards achieving the multiple goals of each of these individual vast areas in parallel. This may not, however, resolve inherent conflicts that exist among each area’s objectives. If the standard definitions of sustainability emphasize intergenerational considerations, issues of current social and environmental justice increasingly identify the need for greater intragenerational equity, that is, justice within the current generation.6 Further, in environmental policy and practices, the term sustainability is now often displaced by concepts such as resilience or “zero net” (carbon, waste, water and so forth). In the meantime, while recent literature critically assesses what sustainability-related initiatives have been able to achieve—under that name or any other— new ideas like sustainability-in-practice or regenerative sustainability question the emphasis on outcomes.7 On the other hand, defining heritage conservation is becoming more complicated. Arguably, heritage and conservation may be diverging as areas of common study and practice.8 New heritage paradigms have recently been defined which are both critical of past inflexibility and more all-inclusive in what heritage should mean and for whom.9 A debate about heritage futures is now as critical as conserving the legacies of the past.10 In a world of changing climates and accelerated disaster, prolonged armed conflicts, and new types of forced nomadic existence, the conservation of natural and cultural heritage can be as much about change as continuity.11 Despite the impermanence of these contexts, it is useful to review types of heritage conservation and sustainable development relationships. According to Larsen and Logan, a shift can now be seen from arguing that “sustainable development threatens heritage” to “heritage is itself sustainable” to “how to make heritage conservation more sustainable.”12 It has often been argued that heritage conservation already contributes to the social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.13 Until recently, the relationship of heritage to each of these areas was more or less explicitly addressed. Indeed, in specific contexts, either cultural or environmental sustainability has been seen as the more natural allies of heritage and conservation. In European archaeology and landscape conservation contexts, cultural sustainability is often the implicit focus.14 6

Turner, “World Heritage,” 8. Robinson and Cole, “Theoretical Underpinnings,” 133–43; Reed and Massie, “What’s Left,” 200– 25. 8 This is perhaps most easily be identified with the emergence of critical heritage studies. 9 Two different shifts in paradigm are described in Araoz “Preserving Heritage Places,” 55–60; Boccardi, “From Mitigation to Adaptation,” 87–97. 10 Harvey and Perry, The Future. 11 See for example Harrison, Appelgren and Bohlin, “Commentary,” 209–20; Khalaf. “Cultural Heritage Reconstruction,” 1–17; Wiggins, “Eroding Paradigms,” 122–30. 12 Larsen and Logan, World Heritage, 7. 13 Young, Stewardship, 5. 14 Fairclough, “The Cultural Context,” 125–7. 7

116

S. M. Ross

A “cultural turn” in development—a shift in paradigm that places local cultures at the heart of development—is seen as the thread that has brought heritage into play in sustainable development.15 In North America, arguments on the benefits of built heritage conservation to environmental sustainability were well explored by the early 2000s.16 Surprisingly, measuring this contribution remains an issue.17 A balanced view of heritage and sustainability interactions, more broadly defined to consider all pillars, has only recently emerged as part of examining how to make heritage conservation more sustainable. As Avrami pointed out at the 2015 Round Table, there is in fact more need to define heritage conservation’s potential contribution to sustainable development than the reverse.18 Indeed, as Wagner has argued, to get a seat at the sustainability table, preservationists—like most of society—need to reconsider long-held beliefs and principles.19 By such arguments, debating more restrictive conservation treatments like preservation and/or restoration has become less relevant than expanding the objectives for heritage rehabilitation to incorporate broader social, economic and environmental goals. Dichotomies inherent in both heritage conservation and sustainable development (for example, nature/culture, economics/environment, tangible/intangible) are thought to block the potential for greater reciprocity among distinct objectives of environmental, social and economic sustainability.20 While the idea of conservation—both natural and cultural—is still seen to be at the root of historical connections between heritage and sustainability, moving beyond traditional natural/cultural heritage concepts is now seen as offering a way forward. Examples of new ideas include embracing integrated targets like biocultural diversity and considering paradigms that connect heritage work to other forms of caring.21 Though, as currently defined, sustainability is intended to be measured, or assessed, through goals, targets and indicators, there is a lack of consensus on the types of sustainability indicators that would be useful for heritage conservation. This uncertainty can be related to ongoing debate about how to assess social and cultural sustainability.22 The dynamic nature and “soft” values of social sustainability are considered difficult to assess.23 Quantitative assessments that are recognized for environmental and economic sustainability focus more on outcomes, or impacts, and less on process, or qualitative factors. This can be related to a focus on sustainability

15

Albert, “Mission and Vision,” 11–9; Labadi and Gould, “Sustainable Development,” 196–216. Preservation Green Lab, The Greenest Building. 17 Webb, “Energy Retrofits.” 748–59. 18 Avrami, “The Contribution.” 69–79. 19 Wagner, “Finding a Seat,” 11. 20 Pollock-Ellwand, “Common Ground,” 236–42. 21 Harmon, “A Bridge.” 380–92; Harrison, “Beyond ‘Natural’ and ‘Cultural’ Heritage,” 24–42. 22 Berthold, et al., “Using Sustainability Indicators,” 23–34; Landorf, “Evaluating Social Sustainability,” 463–77. 23 Larsen and Jensen, “Current Work,” 1–8. 16

7 Sustainable Heritage-in-Practice: Relationships, Goals, Localization …

117

projects with measurable milestones and budgets, as opposed to continuous stewardship processes of care.24 The concern with assessing impacts is also inherent in the development/protection paradigms of conflict and risk at the root of conservation, both natural and cultural. There is increasing evidence that more data—quantitative or qualitative—are needed to demonstrate how heritage conservation can better engage in questions of any type.25 Given how little we know today on what heritage actually has done for environmental, social or economic sustainability, we need to be cautious in defining what more heritage conservation can do for sustainable development. Confirming the goals of heritage conservation will be important. Heritage conservation processes can contribute to defining the stewardship models of ongoing care and responsibility that are needed to move beyond the focus on protection versus development. One area that connects heritage and sustainability goals is the need to better address people or community factors in processes. Despite expanding frameworks like the new 2015–2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the means for the measurement of social dimensions are equally less evolved in sustainable development and heritage conservation. How can developing the ways to meet the new SDGs help direct efforts towards improving and assessing all aspects of the sustainability of heritage conservation?

7.3 Embracing New Goals for Environmental Sustainability and Inclusive Development Newly articulated goals for environmental sustainability, including social and economic developments, as well as peace and security were embraced in the 2015 World Heritage policy on sustainable development.26 These goals can be seen to build on the expansive approaches for sustaining natural and cultural heritage recommended by UNESCO in 2011, the 2015 UN Agenda 2030 and 2015–2030 SDGs, as well as related recent ICOMOS and IUCN efforts. Two key recent policy changes were set by the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) and the SDGs.27 The HUL recommendation addresses the multiple expanding impacts of climate, mass tourism, gentrification, conflict, and unsustainable urban development. This broad ambitious policy statement and set of guidelines promote a landscape approach, moving beyond designated sites or districts to define the need for greater integration of heritage conservation in urban and regional planning. This expansion of the goals of urban conservation has its parallel in the augmented sustainability ambitions of the 2015–2030 SDGs, with 17 goals, and 169 targets. This Agenda 2030 represents the first time that heritage 24

Engineers Canada. “National Guideline,” 4. Avrami, Preservation. 26 UNESCO, “Policy Document for the Integration.” 27 UNESCO, “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.” 25

118

S. M. Ross

conservation goals have been included in the UN sustainability objectives. Under goal 11, “Make cities and human settlement inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable,” target 11.4 calls on countries “to strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage.” The 17 goals are all interconnected and should be pursued in multiple concerted contexts. A promising breakthrough coming out at the same time as the 2015-2030 SDGs is the policy document for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention. It includes thirty-three clear statements about changes needed in World Heritage processes.28 They are organized under the headings of environmental sustainability, inclusive social and economic developments, and peace and security. These categorizations come from UN Agenda 2030, but also from other key UN and UNESCO conventions and declarations on human rights, Indigenous peoples and intangible cultural heritage. Adoption of this policy document is considered a turning point and milestone for the World Heritage Convention.29 It shifts the mandate of World Heritage into a series of new objectives that could change the previous focus on Outstanding Universal Value, integrity and authenticity by advocating an interest in promoting diverse ecological and human qualities and concerns such as biocultural diversity, local cohesion, economic access, human rights, and gender-balanced employment and education. The World Heritage policy statement came out in parallel with the UN Agenda 2030. Its specific guidelines are not directly related to the 17 SDGs, although it footnotes the reference to protecting the natural and cultural heritage under goal 11. Both ICOMOS and IUCN have been more specific in responding to the goals and targets of the SDGs. ICOMOS, the key international authority on cultural heritage, focused an initial response on target 11.4, with its urban context, in order to gain a seat at the UN Habitat III table; however, it has also recognized the connections of many other SDGs to cultural heritage.30 IUCN, ICOMOS’s counterpart for natural heritage in the World Heritage Convention, has embraced every SDG as an integral part of its mandate.31 Arguably the IUCN approach demonstrates a deeper integration of the three pillars of sustainability for nature conservation, perhaps in part by not focusing so much on natural heritage.32 Thus, in the last decade, a shift to mainstream the relationship has meant that heritage conservation has to take on new goals, beyond defending apparently inherent sustainability. This shift is perhaps easily captured in understanding that when American architect and former president of the American Institute of Architects Carl Elefante famously said that the greenest building is the one that already exists, he followed this statement by calling on preservationists to make existing buildings even greener.33 What this means has continued to expand beyond its initial focus on energy 28

UNESCO, “Policy Document for the Integration.” Larsen and Logan, World Heritage, 7. 30 ICOMOS, Cultural Heritage. 31 IUCN, Sustaining Development. 32 Osipova, Badman and Larsen, “The Role of World Heritage,” 155–67. 33 Elefante, “The Greenest Building,” 67–72. 29

7 Sustainable Heritage-in-Practice: Relationships, Goals, Localization …

119

retrofits and other forms of resource efficiency. The goals for greening heritage now include adaptation responses to climate change and environmental injustice. In seeking a more reciprocal relationship between the goals of heritage and sustainability, practitioners will clearly have to go beyond the established goals of protection, ongoing use and enhancement of heritage-defined values. Indeed, heritage conservation must address its own inherently less sustainable aspects. These would include the adverse impacts on local communities of heritage tourism development, the likelihood of gentrification and loss of affordable housing following successful conservation projects, and the ongoing exclusion of traditional communities from protected natural areas.34 As stated by Italian architect and UNESCO advisor on heritage conservation and sustainable development, Giovanni Boccardi: Rather than an exclusive focus on the protection of the remnants of the past for its own sake, the goal should be the promotion of more sustainable ways of life that nurture cultural continuity by building on past experience (that is heritage in the largest sense) while at the same time integrating the best of modern science within a single holistic approach to the planning of the environment in its entirety.35

Sustainable development’s goalposts will continue to move as we redefine the criteria by which we assess success. Being prepared for constantly moving markers is partly why there is increasing concern for resilience or the capacity to adapt.36 International policies provide important aspirations but to be implemented, local policies and diverse practices will be needed. In both the HUL and SDG frameworks, great importance is given to the roles of communities, local governments and cities. It is in each of these unique contexts that the most difficult aspirations for inclusion and more holistic and integrated collaboration can truly be tested.

7.4 Connecting with Communities and Cities: Localization of the 2015–2030 Goals A recent push to better integrate community roles connects heritage conservation and sustainable development. Further, new policies on the historic urban landscape and sustainable development draw attention to the key roles of local or city governments. This section reviews how the global discourse on communities and the local implementation of international policy in the urban context evolved to the current preoccupation with localization of the 2015–2030 goals. The unique values expressed by distinct communities, heritage places and activities mean that global approaches must be adapted. The priority for localization places local actors at the centre of processes that affect the places that matter to them, through different forms of governance ranging from vertical integration to 34

Avrami, et al., “Confronting Exclusion,” 102–20; Barthel Bouchier, Cultural Heritage; de Marco et al., “ ‘No Past, No Future?’ ” 168–79. 35 Boccardi, “From Mitigation to Adaptation,” 95. 36 Jigyasu, Heritage and Resilience, 1–58.

120

S. M. Ross

shared governance and partnerships with non-governmental agencies.37 In Canada, this concern has been expressed in heritage advocacy, conservation and planning for many decades now. As Canadian conservation architect, advocate and educator Jacques Dalibard so ably stated in 1990, “heritage begins at home.”38 The importance of the connection to communities has also long been recognized in sustainable development work. Exchange platforms have existed since at least the 2004 conference of the United Cities and Local Governments organization headquartered in Barcelona that led to Agenda 21 for Culture. The web-based platform Local 2030 has recently been created to exchange projects and resources on localizing the SDGs. These multiple initiatives are key. However, despite greater access to democratic processes, as with governance at the national scale, changing political ideals can quickly unsettle local advances. In 2012, the theme of the World Heritage Convention’s fortieth anniversary celebration in Kyoto was “World Heritage Convention and sustainable development: the role of local communities.”39 This reflection drew attention to community and local government efforts to apply concepts of sustainable development at World Heritage sites around the globe. The outputs will be further discussed in the section on models below, but many general lessons can be gleaned from the related book World Heritage, Benefits Beyond Borders, edited by Indian educator and World Heritage expert Amareswar Galla. This book provides multiple lessons on practices to consider in localization, from considering local values in balance with Outstanding Universal Value to building educational and capacity building tools, from fostering networks for local partnerships to recognizing the need to decolonize the assumptions of the tourist economy.40 Of course, local approaches to heritage sites, designated (or not) by multiple levels of government, have long existed in parallel and as possible models for exchange. What is perhaps changing is that ideas from the bottom-up, from local communities to the network of international heritage conservation experts, are also considered important in the exchange. While localization can refer to any context, urban or rural, the increasing pressures of urbanization and unsustainable urban development as well as the need for housing and infrastructure for those living in urban poverty have reinforced long standing UN preoccupations with cities and urban housing.41 The timing of Habitat III in Quito, the UN conference on housing and sustainable development held in 2016, connected its New Urban Agenda discussion closely to the SDG goal 11 focus on sustainable cities and settlements established the year before. In anticipation of the Quito meeting and the subsequent policy work, ICOMOS prepared a concept note for discussion. This draft document identifies multiple ways to enhance the sustainability of urban areas through heritage. This of course builds on many of the ideas that had become currency in the urban conservation discourse following the HUL recommendation 37

Local 2030, ‘Scaling and Accelerating.” Dalibard, “Heritage Begins at Home,” 8–10. 39 Carmosino, “World Heritage,” 1–11. 40 Galla, World Heritage. 41 Labadi and Logan, Urban Heritage, 1. 38

7 Sustainable Heritage-in-Practice: Relationships, Goals, Localization …

121

and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. It goes much further however in arguing for expanded roles for heritage in recognizing diversity, creating social cohesion, and enabling participatory decision-making processes. In so doing, it defines the contribution of heritage beyond the limited target 11.4.42 The ICOMOS concept note also proposes a broad indicator that directly relates to the HUL approach, the integration of cultural and natural heritage conservation into sustainable development plans, policies and funding. This specific interaction of heritage conservation and sustainable development underlines the lack of proven social sustainability indicators available not only for future assessment of the benefits of heritage conservation but for making the case about benefits today. Beyond this limitation of how to assess impacts, the scale of urban development today is such that its giant footprint has impacts that radiate well beyond urban spaces to areas transformed by extraction, transportation and manufacturing. Furthermore, for many historic cities, development is also closely allied to mass tourism and the related impacts of the travel industry. Understanding how decisions made in the context of historic city redevelopment and heritage tourism would impact sustainable development clearly needs to be part of much broader frameworks. This is a challenge then to the localization goal, but also reflects the need for constant global/local interaction and exchange.43 The community contexts of local governance are as diverse as the heritage typologies that have been defined through multiple community values and disciplinary interests. Many international models have been tested and studied in diverse contexts that could better inform this discussion. The priorities will vary from region to region and country to country. In Canada, which has multiple examples of areas protected under diverse programs, testing models include assessing how Biosphere Reserves, Model Forests, Ramsar Wetlands and other forms of landscape regions of mixed natural/cultural heritage have managed to implement evolving goals for ecological protection, environmental stewardship and sustainability.44 Rooted in the sciences, the nature conservation disciplines have often carried out broader quantitative reviews of past programs. Given emerging attention to the social and economic pillars of sustainability, many of these reviews are now revisiting the success of attempts to better address community perspectives. There is increasing recognition that very few areas that are designated as protected areas for their natural features are successful models without the involvement of local communities. Communities are complex, with multiple needs, skills and perspectives. One type of practice that is broadly useful to examine is the emerging co-governance model for sustainable uses of protected areas.45

42

ICOMOS, Cultural Heritage; ICOMOS, ICOMOS Action Plan. Berenfeld, “Climate Change,” 66–82. 44 Francis, Striving for Environmental Sustainability, 21–47. 45 Oldekorp et al., “A Global Assessment,” 133–41. 43

122

S. M. Ross

7.5 Examining Canadian Models for Sustainable Heritage-in-Practice Canadian models for sustainable heritage-in-practice are important for demonstrating localization, testing high-level policies and explaining possible best practices.46 For complex heritage sites with multiple unique values and complex issues, where a wide range of sustainability objectives have been addressed in projects involving multiple stakeholder groups, the learnings are rarely wholly transferable. However, the study of possible models can be preferable to the simplification that would result from a multiple example statistical analysis, in particular, to explain the roles of many stakeholders over a long period. There are in any case limited data sets for broader studies of sustainable heritage-in-practice for cultural sites. One might assume that many World Heritage sites would provide models of sustainability. The range of well-documented cultural, natural and mixed sites is a critical context to examine. Drawing on the World Heritage data set was the intent of the fortieth anniversary book World Heritage, Benefits Beyond Borders that looked at twenty-six different sites and projects.47 The editor of that collection noted, however, the challenges of obtaining stakeholder perspectives in contexts of diverse governance and resources. Furthermore, in many World Heritage cases, atypical resources have often been available to establish management frameworks. As a country of vast territories and relatively small numbers, Canadian experiences can offer unique insights into the challenge of balancing local ideals and global processes.48 Pimachiowin Aki, recently listed as Canada’s first mixed (natural/cultural) World Heritage site, offers an inspiring example for future analysis as a stewardship model. Added to the World Heritage list in 2018, this site was nominated by four Anishinaabeg communities—the Bloodvein River, Little Grand Rapids, Pauingassi and Poplar River First Nations—in collaboration with the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario. It is an exceptional example of “the cultural tradition of Ji-ganawendamang Gidakiiminaan (keeping the land). This consists of honouring the gifts of the Creator, respecting all forms of life, and maintaining harmonious relations with others.” This site and its communities model their stewardship on indigenous ecological ways of knowing and principles of reciprocity.49 Its nomination provided much discussion at the World Heritage Committee, and indeed became the topic of one of the Montreal Round Tables on the theme of exploring the cultural value of nature.50 Recognition of Indigenous sites, perspectives and models will likely continue to develop in Canada following the 2015 Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its Calls to Action.51 Further, as international law and cultural heritage scholar Stacey Jessiman 46

Labadi and Gould, “Sustainable Development,” 196–216. Galla, World Heritage, 331. 48 Pawlowska-Mainville and Kulchyski, “The Incalculable Weight,” 134. 49 Pimachiowin Aki Corp, “Pimachiowin Aki.” 50 See Chap. 10. 51 Truth and Reconciliation, Calls to Action. 47

7 Sustainable Heritage-in-Practice: Relationships, Goals, Localization …

123

Fig. 7.1 Benny Farm, Montreal, Canada in 2017 with community gardens in foreground. Photograph by Susan Ross

has suggested with respect to the HUL, recent Canadian jurisprudence on land rights is challenging assumptions about heritage that is implicated in continued colonial systems.52 Beyond this critical future direction, two local examples from the 2011 Montreal Round Table illustrate an emerging Canadian concern for sustainable urban revitalization and renewal of existing building stock in large cities like Montreal and Vancouver.53 The first is an example of transformative sustainability which involves community interest in addressing expanded housing needs and improving services at the neighbourhood scale. The second is one of university campus-scale stewardship involving institutional recognition of the value of sustaining existing buildings through maintenance and retrofits to higher standards. The projects date from the early 2000s when there were few projects trying to address social, environmental and economic sustainability, and few concerns in the green building discourse with adaptive reuse or repair of existing stock. Green Energy Benny Farm The first example is the Green Energy Benny Farm project in the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce district of Montreal, where affordable former veterans housing—first occupied in 1947—was transformed to expand density (Fig. 7.1). It highlights the opportunities arising from neighbourhood consultations with the recognition of multiple local interests. Its non-official heritage values are related to its capacity to tell the story of Canada’s response to returning veterans, and its embodiment of aspects of European housing and urban planning models of the era.54 At the 2011 Round Table, L’OEUF architect Daniel Pearl presented the redevelopment project that began many decades earlier. Under consideration from the beginning was the challenge of how the existing post-Second World War veterans housing complex could continue to serve its aging residents. 52

Jessiman, “Challenges,” 80–92. See also Ross, “How Green,” 67–72. 54 Goldie, “Renewing Social Housing.” 53

124

S. M. Ross

Although the original hope was to conserve all the existing buildings, the percentage of conservation eventually diminished as the community reacted to and grappled with the public owner who had lost interest in being the steward of its public housing heritage. The sequence of completed projects did indeed preserve many of the original buildings, but also added many new structures suited to the community’s changing demographics and needs. This shift achieved a doubling of the number of housing units on this relatively low-density site while preserving its strong landscape character, including revitalized community gardens. Sustainability upgrades to existing buildings included fresh air preheating, geothermal wells and solar panels integrated into community energy systems, as well as green roofs on select buildings and grey water reservoirs.55 Interventions on the retained buildings were implemented to ensure improved performance and enhanced durability, involving deconstruction and reuse of the exterior brick-clad wood structures in a better insulated and sealed envelope. The project won both the HOLCIM Gold North American (2005) and Bronze Global (2006) awards for sustainable design and construction.56 Winning these prizes helped draw attention to innovative socio-economic features such as affordable housing and urban farming. While scale was important in creating opportunities, such as district energy, it also made the project more complex, in part because of diverse stakeholders and objectives, so that some aspects were limited to only parts of the project. It also showed that strong stakeholder groups at the beginning of a project may not survive, so it is essential to put governance structures in place that provide for long-term transfer of knowledge and adaptability. UBC Renew and the Buchanan Building The second example is the work done on the University of British Columbia’s Buchanan Building in Vancouver under the UBC Renew program, a university-wide initiative that commenced in 2004 in response to the notion of deferred maintenance debt, that is the need to finance long overdue repairs. The program was developed in partnership with the province to fund building retrofits as a means of reducing costs by saving energy. The application of this energy management/building maintenance to the Buchanan complex of modernist university buildings demonstrates how to use the financial opportunities of energy savings across the scale and time frames available to a public university. UBC campus architect Gerry McGeough presented the UBC Renew program at the 2011 Round Table, highlighting lessons learned from a property management perspective.57 Over five phases completed from 2006 to 2013, nearly sixteen thousand square meters of the Buchanan’s five blocks were rehabilitated (Fig. 7.2). Like the Benny Farm project, the complex of buildings, and indeed the campus as a whole, has no official heritage status. Built between 1956 and 1958, the Buchanan Building is a central component of the early modern heritage of the campus, reflecting a key period in the university’s history. Designed as the main Arts Building, the complex of five 55

Parks Canada, Building Resilience, 52. Pearl and Wentz, Benny Farm and Rosemont. 57 McGeough, “UBC Renews,” 182–94. 56

7 Sustainable Heritage-in-Practice: Relationships, Goals, Localization …

125

Fig. 7.2 Buchanan building, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada in 2016. Photograph by Susan Ross

low structures wraps around two courtyards. It is still one of the most heavily used areas of campus, with traffic from over 4500 students per day.58 Changes to the building’s envelope and systems addressed both indoor environmental quality and overall thermal efficiency, while program reconfiguration improved the access of teaching and office space to daylight and natural ventilation. Single-pane glazing was replaced with new low-E glazing to provide better heat loss/gain under varying weather conditions. A more recent project to rehabilitate the courtyards has added a layer of contemporary site features that contribute to creating microclimates and changing occupant behaviour, including a cistern for rainwater irrigation, bioswales for filtration, and relocated mature trees. Projects involving ten other buildings have since been completed as part of UBC Renew, with lessons from the Buchanan complex informing the approach to other post-war structures. UBC Renew can be a planning and funding model for other modern heritage ensembles. The process is as interesting as its outcomes. In keeping with a “campus as laboratory” approach, the program was well-documented at each stage, and the conclusions from lessons-learned analysis have continued to influence more recent work. Documentation includes frameworks on how to assemble financial and human resources, and strategies to implement them in phases over time.59 The project results are also studied by students and faculty on campus. The UBC Renew program was recognized by Heritage Vancouver in 2013. Most buildings rehabilitated through the program obtain standard green building recognition such as LEED Gold

58 59

Tomaszweska, “Post-War Reconstruction.” University of British Columbia, “Green Buildings.”

126

S. M. Ross

certification, or broader sustainability awards that also assess social and economic sustainability. Analysis of two case studies Both these projects show the value of contexts when the players—consultants, managers, communities/user groups—are interested in research practice projects that will influence later work. They document the process and openly share critical analyses. Engaged leadership is important as is the patience to follow through on projects that are developed over multiple phases. A willingness to negotiate between conflicting strategies and to discuss mitigation was key for both projects. For demolished buildings in Benny Farm, materials were reclaimed and reused on site; for replacement windows in the Buchanan complex, they are also part of a larger strategy to improve access to daylight. A balance is sought between renovation and new design, between architecture and conservation, and between landscape preservation and revitalization. In the Benny Farm housing project, diverse user groups are considered, while in the UBC project facility management engages with the institution’s educational mandate for teaching sustainable design. While these two projects of local value and importance are grounded in the specific user communities and institutional contexts, both can represent teaching models that invoke the importance of planning and design, and the benefits inherent in a whole landscape perspective with a broader strategy which involves a collective approach. They also illustrate the possibilities for ordinary, less celebrated modernist designs that comprise a large part of the urban landscape in many parts of the world. In both cases, the interventions carried out involve greater levels of change than are usually considered acceptable in a heritage conservation project. They have admirably now both achieved high levels of recognition in terms of sustainable design and stewardship. As demonstrated by these projects, the 2011 Round Table created much needed space to be shared by the practical experience of architects, urban designers, and property managers. Architect-led practices such as the integrated design process (IDP) have become important in developing models of consultation and collaboration. In parallel, property managers of large campuses or inventories of public properties now have new opportunities for programming tailored to the scale and ownership context. Both projects were ultimately seen as experimental models and learning opportunities. These types of cases are widely discussed in the existing building stock renovation milieu but perhaps less so as part of the conservation conversation. They deserve more attention from the heritage community.60 Reflective practitioners play vital roles in both heritage and sustainability fields in bridging theory, policy and practice.61

60

See for example the discussions on existing buildings and materials and the circular economy at BAMB, “Summary of BAMB Final.” 61 Francis, Striving for Environmental Sustainability, 20; Witcomb and Buckley, “Engaging,” 562– 78.

7 Sustainable Heritage-in-Practice: Relationships, Goals, Localization …

127

7.6 Reinforcing These Encouraging Directions—A Summary but not a Conclusion This chapter has provided a review of recent advances in defining the interactions between heritage and sustainability, noting that heritage conservation now has a seat at the sustainable development table rather than a reciprocal relationship of acknowledged mutual benefit. It will continue to be up to the heritage and conservation disciplines, communities, and actors to demonstrate how to transform aspirational connections for a stronger relationship into transformative practices. In defining new strategies and practices, bridging natural/cultural heritage separations and looking beyond the traditional closely-related disciplines for key partners are important. Approaches based in landscape, agriculture, energy and community all help create bridges and productive partnerships. The increasing value given to localization of international policy by local governments and communities is an important connector between heritage and sustainability. New governance models will come from community-level alliances. It is important to see localization as part of a multi-directional exchange, which does not see the local as the lower level of a hierarchy of values. The World Heritage Committee’s new policy on sustainable development is useful in defining ambitions for any level of heritage. How will we make sure that these principles, including specific recommendations for environmental, social and economic sustainability, make their way into the various specific discussions of each sustainable development goal? Heritage can be a connector across the pillars by embracing all the goals. This review of recent developments aims to contribute a constructive outlook for possible future contexts for this vital exchange to continue.62 There is much still to learn from studying sustainability-heritage interactions, which will continue to evolve as potential for mutual reinforcements are better understood. Heritage conservation could also contribute more to questioning the parallel development and protection paradigms, each of which limits the other while tending to focus stakeholders on assessing impacts or outcomes. While we need more research and data as evidence, measuring impacts may not be as critical as ensuring that inclusive, integrated and holistic collaborative processes are in place. Furthermore, we should also recognize limits to the possible roles of heritage in achieving the 2015– 2030 SDGs while looking to improve integration within heritage of natural/cultural ideals and processes. Urban contexts are key. But closely interconnected with urban development are development impacts on broader protected areas and Indigenous territories. In the Canadian context, new models may emerge from increased attention to Indigenous perspectives on how to care for the land and people in a reciprocal paradigm. Concepts emerging from sustainability thinking that bridge socio-economic objectives, including sustainability-in-practice, regenerative sustainability and 62

A number of other chapters in this volume are likely to overlap with sustainability as it relates to heritage conservation practices, including Chaps. 2, 4, 9, 10 and 11. The relationship of sustainability to climate change is particularly important, as it is not always understood.

128

S. M. Ross

complex systems analysis should be examined. Borrowing on these emerging ideas, “sustainable heritage-in-practice” could be defined as holistic, collaborative and process-oriented, while striving to balance complex and changing goals. It is important to develop case studies for models that build on the positive messages of heritage significance to demonstrate how to reinforce these values by tackling the challenges of achieving broader goals.63 Enabling a balance of continuity and change will become even more critical in planning adaptations to climate change and ensuring that stewardship includes reinforcement of existing resilience. Our legacies from these complex times will not be just what we have kept, but what we have done together, how we have done it responsibly, and what we have learned.

Susan M. Ross has practiced as an architect in Montreal, Berlin and Gatineau before joining Carleton University in Ottawa. In 2022, she co-organized the Climate Heritage Network’s ICOMOS University Forum on Heritage Education for Climate Adaptation. She co-chairs Canada’s National Roundtable for Heritage Education. A Fellow of the Association for Preservation Technology, she formerly co-chaired its Technical Committee on Sustainable Preservation. Her research and publications focus on the sustainable conservation of modern and industrial landscapes, buildings, and materials.

63

Robinson and Cole, “Theoretical Underpinnings,”133; Fredengren, “Nature: Cultures,” 109.

Chapter 8

Getting the Message Across Looking Back on Heritage Conservation 20/20: Hindsight and Foresight Claudine Déom

Abstract This chapter aims to help the reader understand the contemporary context for the heritage conservation sector. It outlines some of the important changes that mark the evolution of ideas over the past decade, which contrast with the public’s perception. The author underscores the need for heritage experts to develop communication strategies to reach a wider audience and create an interest for heritage amongst a more diverse group of stakeholders in order to achieve sustainability. Keywords Heritage communication · perceptions of heritage · hindsight · foresight · sustainability

8.1 Introduction In 2012, the Montreal Round Table had as its theme Heritage Conservation 20/20: Hindsight and Foresight. The objective was “[to examine] the theory and practice of heritage conservation in the past half century and how it might evolve by the year 2020.”1 This was the seventh of the fourteen Montreal Round Tables that took place during the Chair’s mandate. Without fully realizing it, the Chair holder, Christina Cameron, had proposed a reflection entirely appropriate for the midway point of the mandate. Each of the chapters of this publication is, in its own way, an exercise in looking both backward at and forward to a particular theme. This one is no exception. Consideration of this Round Table, whose primary goal was already introspection and projection, actually suggests a mise en abîme, a story within a story. This is why, with no claim to be a summary of this collective work, this chapter is intended to help the reader better understand its overall meaning. Its approach will therefore, of necessity, be more general. It will not focus exclusively on World Heritage, nor on Quebec’s 1

Cameron and Herrmann, Heritage Conservation 20/20, 181.

C. Déom (B) School of Architecture, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Cameron (ed.), Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century, Creativity, Heritage and the City 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2_8

129

130

C. Déom

heritage in particular although it is nourished by it. The chapter begins with a brief review of the main findings that emerged from the discussions between the participants of the 2012 meeting. It will then look at the evolution of heritage over the course of the intervening years. Finally, drawing its inspiration from the objective of the 2012 Round Table to look towards the future, the chapter will finish with a reflection on the future of heritage conservation. At the start, a few remarks are in order. The comments recorded in the next few pages reflect my personal point of view as a professor whose teaching and research focus on heritage conservation. This work draws on a theoretical approach as opposed to the more practical one of executing professional heritage mandates. However, the professional mission of the Faculté de l’aménagement, the university environment in which I work, requires collaboration with practitioners in the field. In addition, for many years I have participated in activities organized by citizen groups advocating on behalf of heritage. These ongoing discussions help me understand the daily realities of conservation practice and to be aware of the public’s perception of heritage. This sensibility enriches the theory and enhances its nuances. Finally, the views expressed in this chapter are those of someone who belongs to an intermediate generation of heritage actors, the generation that succeeds that of the pioneers who created the modern measures for heritage conservation—many of whom are authors of chapters of this publication—and precedes the next generation, a younger group that is preparing for or has just entered the workplace. This disparity in age between the old and the new guard gives rise to different views on the nature of heritage and on the means of preserving it. The intermediate generation bridges the gap between the two, as it acknowledges its inheritance—that which had already been put in place—and is at the same time attentive to the new societal values of the next generation.

8.2 Looking Back on Looking Forward: the 2012 Round Table Like its predecessors, the 2012 Round Table brought together participants with diverse profiles and from various backgrounds. The reflection was nourished by presentations from speakers working in Montreal and Canada as well as others working internationally. Graduate students in heritage conservation were also in attendance, allowing an emerging generation of practitioners to share their opinions about the future of conservation. From these three days of exchanges and discussions, two main observations emerged and received unanimous endorsement. The first relates to the very notion of heritage that has frequently been recognized for its great diversity. A change of scale—from monuments to sites to landscapes—and a multiplication of typologies, to include vernacular architecture and the legacy of modernity, without forgetting its intangible aspects, have resulted in an expansion in the definition of heritage since the

8 Getting the Message Across Looking Back on Heritage Conservation …

131

1970s. Even though all the participants recognized the great richness brought on by this phenomenon, several also stressed the confusion that it causes. What is considered as heritage varies greatly from person to person, even among professionals, depending on the context in which each individual works. Actors in the field are as diverse as their interests and their understanding of heritage.2 There is therefore no consensus on what heritage is or on how to protect it, which causes communication problems between practitioners, and between practitioners and the public. During their presentations, the students even proposed the idea that a new term would be required to refer to heritage, this word—the H-word—now being derogatory by virtue of its association with excessive attachment to the past and conservatism, even archaism.3 The second observation from the Round Table focused on the need to rethink conservation strategies in order to better integrate heritage into civil society. Everyone agreed that heritage has not succeeded in arousing sufficient interest and enthusiasm among decision-makers, private business and the general public since the 1960s. Today, heritage places continue to disappear or are left abandoned so that their demolition becomes inevitable. The infrastructure for heritage, which regroups all of the management and policy frameworks, in particular the legislation but also the training programs and technologies, remains marginal and hardly relevant in terms of economic development. Protected historic sites, for their part, experience a continuous decrease in visitors. In order to reverse the trend, several speakers recalled the importance of talking with various stakeholders when intervening in the built environment, a practice that has been deemed legitimate in the heritage field for several years. They also highlighted the need to find new ways to connect individuals with places in order to increase a sense of belonging. This involves creating opportunities for people to experience heritage in situ through community activities that would reveal the potential of heritage places to contribute to the quality of life.4 This observation on the place of heritage in civil society also raised some thorny questions during the last session of the 2012 Round Table entitled “Heritage Conservation in 2020: Looking through the crystal ball.” For those of us who are for the most part trained as historians, art historians or archeologists, are we ready to accept that heritage is no longer exclusively associated with monuments, with symbolic places in history and architecture, but also with everyday places that contribute to the quality of life of a community? Would we be willing to keep these places only for their social value if that were the desire expressed by the members of a community?5 In other words, taking into account this evolution of the definition of heritage, are we ready to blur the traditional boundaries of our domain and to relax the management frameworks that we ourselves have established over the last forty years?6 2

Bennett, “Riffs, Rants and Reflections,” 45–57. Murray, “The H-word,” 95–102. 4 Mitchell, “Landscape conservation,” 68–80. 5 Déom, “Qu’est-ce qu’on leur laisse,” 146–52. 6 Angel, “Exploring the social dimensions,” 136–45. 3

132

C. Déom

The 2012 Round Table was a real communion of ideas by which the participants recognized the paradigm shift in heritage that was taking place. Everyone agreed that this new way of conceiving heritage would require a renewal of practice to ensure that heritage could be better integrated into civil society.

8.3 From Hindsight and Foresight 20/20 to 2020 Since the Hindsight and Foresight 20/20 meeting, the world has changed. It has become more complex. Accordingly, the field of heritage has continued to evolve as reflected in two themes—democracy and sustainability—both of which had been heralded by the 2012 Round Table discussions. Democracy and heritage The second decade of the twenty-first century was marked by a questioning of the role and expertise of heritage professionals. Since the nineteenth century, experts such as historians, architects and archaeologists have identified heritage components of the built environment and determined strategies for their conservation. At the turn of the third millennium, critics of this exclusivity have increased in number and emphasized the importance of community attachment to a place. In the years since the 2012 Round Table, several events demonstrate this new perspective. In 2012, for example, the Association of Critical Heritage Studies (ACHS) was founded by a group of academics who promote heritage as a field of critical research. The first meeting in Gothenburg, Sweden concluded with the drafting of a manifesto that questions the Eurocentric and hegemonic vision of heritage based on the historic monument and driven by experts. For ACHS, this official heritage discourse— the authorized heritage discourse—does not reflect the perspectives of minority or marginalized groups in society. The Association therefore promulgates a renewal of heritage based on the values identified by communities and on an interdisciplinary approach that includes disciplines formerly absent from consideration such as anthropology, political science and sociology. These demands have resonated in the heritage field in Canada with respect to Indigenous peoples. The Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the ensuing creation of the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation in 2015 have given rise to an important reflection on the definition of Canadian heritage and on the right to heritage as viewed differently by cultural groups whose perspectives have previously been ignored. The heritage of Indigenous peoples underlined the importance of the intangible dimension of heritage as recorded in beliefs, rituals and traditions as well as connections to nature. Nature itself—whether it is the topography, the rivers, the fauna and flora—does not always bear obvious physical traces of human presence, thus rendering the interpretation and enhancement of Indigenous heritage dependent on a understanding of the culture of the different groups. In 2012, we were at the very beginning of the implementation of the Faro Convention, a Council of Europe multilateral treaty by which the signatory states commit

8 Getting the Message Across Looking Back on Heritage Conservation …

133

to protect cultural heritage and the right of citizens to access it and participate in its future. Despite the fact that the text of the convention dates back to 2005, it was not until 2011 that it entered into force. Since then, numerous activities initiated by citizen movements have focused on the presentation of local heritage, both places and lifestyles, thus affirming the importance of its social value. The Faro Convention and the reflection that surrounds it, communicated in particular by the book Heritage and Beyond,7 raise important but complex issues, such as the definition of expertise in heritage conservation and the resolution of conflicting values that arise when introducing other perspectives into decision-making processes. These issues remain relevant today. In summary, since the 2012 Round Table, the very idea of heritage is being redefined. Formerly centered on the preservation of material property, conservation now emphasizes the links between people and places. The opinion of communities who live with heritage on a daily basis and the sense of belonging felt by citizens are increasingly at the heart of concerns and strategies to maintain it. The exploration of this new way of understanding heritage and of ways to make it more accessible has been pursued through the triennial international symposia of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). The themes chosen for these meetings illustrate the changing perspectives. In 2014, the symposium in Florence focused on “Heritage and Landscapes as Human Values,” and the 2017 symposium in Delhi discussed “Heritage and Democracy.” The 2020 meeting scheduled for Sydney, under the theme “Shared Cultures—Shared Heritage—Shared Values,” demonstrates unequivocally that the tendency towards democratization continues. Heritage and sustainable development This democratization of heritage is closely associated with sustainable development, the second major change to mark the field of conservation for some time. In fact, the association between heritage and sustainable development already dates back several decades. During the 1970s, heritage, which was carving out a place for itself in civil society, was perceived as a viable strategy for the preservation of nature because it reduced waste and saved resources. Ahead of its time, this association of heritage with a phenomenon that we had not yet defined or even identified as sustainable development did not become evident until much later.8 It resurfaced at the beginning of the 2000s, notably through reflections led by international bodies including the Getty Conservation Institute, ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre. The Recommendation concerning the historic urban landscape, adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 10 November 2011, marks a decisive moment. The document puts forward a holistic vision of urban heritage that is embodied in the buildings and spatial organization of urban environments. This vision includes the physical aspects of places, such as its topography or hydrography, as well as its social dimensions. Finally, the historic urban landscape approach promotes the importance of evidence of territorial evolution and the ability of this evidence to communicate 7

Council of Europe, Heritage and Beyond, 13–22, 29–42. The contribution of Susan Ross in this book gives more detail about the links between heritage conservation and sustainable development, the focus of the Chair’s 2011 Round Table.

8

134

C. Déom

the adaptation of communities to the place and, in return, the impact of lifestyles, rituals and habits on the shaping of the territory. But above all, the innovative aspect of the recommendation lies in its definition of conservation, which aims to make heritage part of economic and social development policies. It promotes the critical role that the whole of the existing built environment—and not only the monuments— plays in the quality of life of inhabitants by being the bearer of a collective identity while being an engine of economic development.9 This was confirmed in 2015 by the formal identification of heritage conservation as a target for achieving goal eleven on sustainable cities and communities, one of the seventeen sustainable development goals (SDGs) adopted by the United Nations. Lastly, reflection on heritage and its association with the SDGs has also advanced dramatically with the rise of the climate crisis in recent years. Created in 2018, the Climate Heritage Network (CHN) brings together different actors from the arts, culture and heritage including governments, non-governmental organizations, management agencies and universities. The mission of this international network is to mobilize the action of these various actors in order to promote the influential role that the arts, culture and heritage sectors can play in climate policies as well as their capacity to help legislators meet their targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.10 The short time that has elapsed since the 2012 Round Table has allowed us to portray a new vision of heritage. From static and backward looking, heritage aims to be dynamic and integrated into everyday life. The study of heritage conservation is no longer limited to the knowledge of the history of places, but now includes communities and their way of life. Preservation strategies that seek to bring heritage alive and to integrate it into society have replaced those that sought to isolate heritage like a work of art in a museum. Even if conservation remains associated with restoration, it is also synonymous with the reuse and adaptation of buildings, sites and neighborhoods. Bâtiment 7, located in the Pointe-Saint-Charles neighbourhood of Montreal, illustrates this transformation of the concept of heritage. Formerly used by the Canadian National Railway, the huge nineteenth-century brick building has been appropriated by the public. At the end of a fifteen-year struggle, the citizens organized a cooperative and took over the place in order to provide community and local services sorely lacking in this neighborhood, one of the least affluent in the city. The complex now houses a grocery store, an art school and workshops. Bâtiment 7 is a heritage place not only for its historical and architectural value, but also for its social significance. Its reuse as a community centre ensures its conservation (Figs. 8.1, 8.2). As the first lines of this chapter recalled, this new heritage paradigm was already emerging at the time of the Hindsight and Foresight 20/20 meeting. It was also evident at the time of the 2011 Round Table, Impact of Sustainability Strategies on Heritage Conservation Practice. During that meeting, Julian Smith shared a three-phased diagram on heritage conservation practice in Canada in his keynote 9

UNESCO, “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.” Climate Heritage Network, “Transforming Climate Action.”

10

8 Getting the Message Across Looking Back on Heritage Conservation …

135

Fig. 8.1 Community involvement at Building 7 at Pointe-Saint-Charles in Montréal, Canada during the opening in 2018. Photograph from Bâtiment 7

Fig. 8.2 Cultural activities at Building 7 at Pointe-Saint-Charles in Montréal, Canada during the opening in 2018. Photograph from Bâtiment 7

address (Fig. 8.3). The first two phases aimed to summarize the evolution of the heritage conservation movement (shown in blue) and the environmentalist movement (in yellow). According to Smith, both causes emerged at the same time as countercultures in opposition to mainstream societal views. The first phase showed the grid of design and development—the dominant building culture during the postSecond World War era—in which the heritage and environmentalist movements

136

C. Déom

Fig. 8.3 Heritage and environmental movements in Canada: three phases. Drawing by Julian Smith

were emerging. During the 1980s and 1990s, each movement developed and was formalized within society namely by the establishment of policies, as phase two indicated. In the third phase, Smith was looking through the crystal ball to imagine a world in which the blue and the yellow were combined as a result of a paradigm shift. The heritage conservation movement and the environmental movement became partners in what he called “a fluid landscape that includes the whole contemporary design and development field.”11 This third phase is the eloquent embodiment of the current theoretical discourse advanced by various heritage practitioners, certainly those participating in the various Montreal Round Tables who all sing its praises. But, as we know, theory is nothing without practice and vice versa. There is reason to wonder if this choir of the new heritage era succeeds in making itself heard in the field: does praise of the new paradigm extend beyond the confines of Round Tables? To ask the question is to answer it. It must be admitted that, despite this shared enthusiasm, the message of the renewed definition of heritage conservation is not reaching civil society and the general public. If this is not the case, how then do we explain the abundance of bad news about heritage that the media periodically communicates to us, such as the decrease in enrollment in heritage training programs, the abandonment and demolition of historic places in favor of new construction, and the lack of maintenance of state-owned properties? One cannot help but note that government authorities continue to intervene in extremis to prevent the disappearance of historic places and that conservation by coercion is common practice. Is heritage on the way to losing that which it has fought so hard for over time? Does Julian Smith’s phase two diagram really reflect what the field has accomplished since the post-war period? Have we truly succeeded in being mainstream? On the contrary, it seems that the field is isolated now more than ever. The questions raised by the 2012 Round Table as to why heritage has failed to generate enthusiasm within society therefore remain more relevant than ever.

11

Smith, “Reflections,” 50.

8 Getting the Message Across Looking Back on Heritage Conservation …

137

8.4 Foresight from 2020 and Beyond: Overcoming the Obstacle of Communication Together, the fourteen Montreal Round Tables constitute without doubt a rich legacy of the existence of the Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage. Those who have had the chance to participate in one or several will agree that these yearly gatherings provided an opportunity for the stimulation of the mind. In addition, they contributed to fostering a professional network of actors in heritage conservation. The discussions could be qualified as intellectually comfortable: the participants were spared from spending the time and energy necessary to explain many facets of their thoughts since everyone possessed the knowledge base required to follow the discussion. Over the years, a coded language has developed in reference to key figures and events in the field. For instance, “Nara” immediately refers to that seminal 1994 meeting in Japan on authenticity; “Bamiyan” recalls the controversial 2001 bombing of the Buddhas in the Afghan World Heritage site; and conservation professionals know that “HUL” stands for the historic urban landscape approach (in reference to the aforementioned 2011 UNESCO Recommendation). This language forms the content of courses taught in heritage programs across the world, such as the Masters in Conservation at the Université de Montréal. In addition, since this terminology is used amongst ourselves, it contributes greatly to defining a tight group of experts. The field of heritage conservation today conjures up a mental image of a deep swimming pool that is exclusive to those who can swim, i.e. who master the jargon. The more expert one becomes, the deeper she or he can swim, accessing depths known only to a few in the same way an expert diver would. Mastering that art entices us to the deepest confines of the pool, making the swim in shallow waters seem unchallenging. The Montreal Round Tables—and other similar meetings organized by and for experts—convene only deep swimmers to the discussion. While acknowledging the value of such gatherings to further the reflection on a specific topic, their recurrence has nevertheless accustomed us to talking to each other at the expense of our connections with the outside world. By limiting the number of new swimmers to plunge into our pool, we have failed to adjust our message about heritage conservation as it has evolved through time. As a result, conservationists must face the fact that society’s view about what constitutes heritage and the strategies to preserve it are often very outdated. A striking example of the impact of this failure to communicate is the chasm that persists between conservation experts and their perception of heritage and that of the majority of architects practicing contemporary design. For the latter, heritage is mostly associated with old pretty buildings and constitutes a hindrance to creativity. This archaic view is rooted in the postwar era illustrated in phase one of Smith’s diagram about the establishment of the counter-culture. It is hard to believe that after all these years conservation enthusiasts are still perceived as people who wish to freeze places in time. In light of the important role that architects play in the transformation of the built environment, this counterproductive misunderstanding needs to be addressed without delay. Furthermore, architects are not the only ones

138

C. Déom

who maintain an anachronistic vision of heritage embodied by old stones. Heritage stakeholders also need to address economists, real estate developers, anthropologists, engineers and environmentalists in order to ensure that the new heritage paradigm, one that brings it closer to the goals of sustainable development, can materialize in practice. This essential interdisciplinarity requires that a conversation be struck between these fields and that of heritage, something that we, in heritage, are not very used to doing. The question is then: how do we move past the communication breakdown and convey to practitioners, the general public and civil society that heritage should and can be of great use economically, environmentally and socially? The environmental movement provides an opportunity for reflection. In 2018, the executive director of Nature Canada, Graham Saul, published a research paper presenting his views on the environmental movement. The question he was trying to answer was “Why?” Why does the planet still appear to be edging towards a global catastrophe when problems about the environment are well-known and have been for decades? Saul claims that the problem is environmentalism itself. He believes it suffers from a communication problem mainly because it does not have a single, coherent, unified message that people can grasp. In his paper, Environmentalists, what are we fighting for?12 he retraces the evolution of the environmental movement from the 1960s to today in a similar fashion to that of Julian Smith at the 2011 Round Table. He emphasizes the fact that the movement’s communication problem is not caused by the diversity within environmentalism, a trait he considers rather as a strength. Inspired by the messages conveyed by other social movements such as the Civil Rights campaign and the Abolitionists who led the anti-slavery movement, Saul argues that the success of these causes was in great part due to their capacity to explain what they were fighting for with words possessing a clear meaning such as “justice,” “equality” and “humanity.” The fact that these terms conveyed hope—as opposed to fear—and that they expressed something that people could relate to and readily endorse was crucial to their effectiveness. I believe that the environmental movement’s crisis described by Saul is quite similar to the one heritage conservation is currently facing. In order to avoid the threat to our work through an erroneous perception of heritage, the field urgently needs to articulate an overarching message that describes what it is trying to achieve. The time has come to return to the surface from the bottom of the deep pool in which we have been swimming together for several decades and dedicate some time to this issue. Serious thought must be given to the fundamental nature of what we value and wish to conserve and enhance. In view of the narrow meaning most people attribute to it, perhaps the time has come to retire the H-word as the upcoming generation of practitioners boldly suggested during the 2012 Round Table. Would a more inclusive term such as “inheritance”, as implied in the Faro Convention, be more appropriate? As Graham Fairclough puts it: “New heritage suggests that instead of finding the best, calling it heritage and fighting to keep it, we should look with open eyes at all that exists around us, accept that at some level it is all heritage and then decide

12

Saul, Environmentalists.

8 Getting the Message Across Looking Back on Heritage Conservation …

139

how to use it best for social and future values. That use might involve traditional preservation, but it might not.”13 During the final Round Table in 2018, other inspiring words were spoken about heritage and its role in society, some of which could contribute to structure the idea of the new paradigm: “adaptation,” “intersections” and “resilience,” just to mention a few. To those I would add “creativity,” “identity” and “well-being.” If, as a group of experts, we feel strongly that the built legacy is part of the solution to overcome some of the current challenges faced by society—most notably climate change—then we must think of ways to articulate that idea in an efficient form. This would be an exercise beyond branding. Instead, the idea of the relevance of heritage conservation to society needs to “stick”, a term coined by Malcolm Gladwell in his book The Tipping Point, in which he speaks of the “stickiness factor” of ideas as one of the conditions for their widespread adoption. In order to stick, an idea should be memorable and compel us to act. “If you pay careful attention to the structure and format of your material, you could dramatically enhance stickiness,”14 claims Gladwell who also insists on the importance of this condition in view of the plethora of information which is directed to us on a daily basis.15 Authors Dan and Chip Heath echo Gladwell in their 2007 publication Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die, which aims to expand on the definition of sticky ideas, introduced in The Tipping Point.16 While there are no formulas for stickiness, the authors posit that six key principles are at play for an idea to be memorable: simplicity (finding the core of the idea); unexpectedness (in order to get people’s attention); concreteness (a message anchored in real life situations); credibility (of the idea and the person who conveys it); emotions (ideas that aim at the heart and not at the reason) and stories (which provide knowledge and inspiration to act). Finally, Gladwell provides another piece of advice that the field of heritage conservation might find useful for the future. It is about the dissemination of ideas. In order to spread, an idea needs a connector. More than a spokesperson in the marketing sense of the term, a connector is someone with a broad spectrum of acquaintances in different domains. The efficiency of a connector is contingent on his or her being outside of the field of heritage conservation, “a weak tie” as Gladwell puts it, as opposed to a strong tie, which is someone working in the same milieu. In short, ideas would spread successfully through people who know people outside of the field of heritage.17 Since the 1960s, the heritage conservation movement has achieved an extraordinary level of maturity and sophistication. These are exciting times to be learning and thinking about heritage as our contemporary societies are facing major changes brought on by global phenomena such as the growth of cities and climate change. 13

Fairclough, “New Heritage Frontiers,” 33. Gladwell, The Tipping Point, 116. 15 Ibid., 105. 16 Heath and Heath, Made to Stick, 13. 17 Gladwell, The Tipping Point, 39-46. 14

140

C. Déom

The astonishing fact that, in developed economies, at least half of the buildings that will be in use in 2050 have already been built, positions heritage at the centre of such transformations18 and creates an unprecedented context for the upcoming generation of practitioners. Unprecedented times call for unprecedented measures. The marketing suggestions briefly described above will not magically solve the lack of enthusiasm within the general public about heritage that was at the origin of the 2012 Round Table and is still noticeable today. However, in order to position the conservation of heritage as a positive and indispensable contribution to society, the heritage field now needs to reflect on itself. This process should include new players in the discussion, add more swimmers to the pool. In addition, it should result in the development of essential communication tools to help break the silos in which we have confined ourselves. Herein lies our challenge for the coming years. Nevertheless, these words from Gladwell should encourage us to work at getting the message across about heritage: “What must underlie successful epidemics [of ideas], in the end, is a bedrock belief that change is possible, that people can radically transform their behavior or beliefs in the face of the right kind of impetus.”19 I reiterate the wish I made in closing my presentation at the 2012 Round Table for more pragmatism in the work that we are trying to accomplish. While I do not claim to have 20/20 vision for the future of our field, I am certain that we cannot contemplate an answer without taking into account the world we live in now and in the future.

Claudine Déom Ph.D. is a professor in heritage conservation at the School of Architecture. She coordinates the graduate programs in Conservation of Built Heritage at Université de Montréal. Her research focuses on the history of architecture and heritage conservation, particularly the identification of values to buildings and sites. She is currently researching the heritage of ethnocultural groups in Montreal. She is involved in local and national heritage conservation organizations such as ICOMOS Canada and Héritage Montréal.

18 19

Verrière, Pierre. “The future passes through old buildings.” Gladwell, The Tipping Point, 258.

Chapter 9

Wind Turbines and Landscape: Towards Sustainable Development Nobuko Inaba

Abstract The 2013 Montreal Round Table on Wind Turbines and Landscape: towards Sustainable Development explored the issue of how to balance heritage conservation and development in the face of industrial-scale wind farms. The subject resulted from a discussion at the 2012 World Heritage Committee session on wind turbines in the sea near the World Heritage site of Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay in France. The Committee debate focused on trade-offs between clean energy production and landscape conservation. Gaps in heritage protection systems have challenged heritage practitioners for years, well before the emergence of industrial-scale wind turbines. Key among these gaps are the lack of methodologies to measure the degree of visual impact on both tangible and intangible heritage values as well as weak landuse control systems outside protected areas. This chapter studies two Japanese cases of large-scale offshore wind farm projects. In a context where the pursuit of renewable energy is top priority, these examples illustrate how impacts on heritage are examined through Japan’s national system that sorts out competing interests among stakeholders before approvals are given. Keywords Renewable energy · Wind farms · Heritage trade-offs · Heritage impact assessment · Landscape protection · Japanese heritage

9.1 Introduction The eighth Montreal Round Table in 2013 considered the topic of Wind Turbines and Landscape: towards Sustainable Development.1 The meeting explored the issue of how to balance heritage conservation and development, examining the impact of industrial-scale wind farms on their surrounding landscapes. The subject resulted from a discussion at the thirty-sixth session of the World Heritage Committee in 1

Cameron and Herrmann, Wind Turbines and Landscape, 1-162.

N. Inaba (B) University of Tsukuba, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Cameron (ed.), Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century, Creativity, Heritage and the City 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2_9

141

142

N. Inaba

2012 during which concerns emerged about wind turbines in the sea near the World Heritage site of Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay in France. The Committee debate focused on the trade-off between clean energy production and landscape conservation. During the discussion, the French delegation acknowledged that land-use control systems in the buffer zones and the areas beyond were not robust. In addition, the question emerged about responsibility for protecting important views of World Heritage sites beyond the zones identified for protection at the time of inscription.2 The presentations and discussions at the 2013 Round Table exposed gaps in heritage protection systems that had challenged heritage practitioners for years, well before the emergence of industrial-scale wind turbines. Key among these gaps are the lack of methodologies to measure the degree of visual impact on both tangible and intangible heritage values caused by new structures in surrounding landscapes as well as weak land-use control systems outside protected areas. These weaknesses make it difficult to defend heritage interests against other competing social and economic imperatives. In the search for alternate sources of energy beyond carbon-producing fossil fuels, the exponential growth in wind farms has exposed these existing issues and brought them into focus in national and international discussions. Among various types of infrastructure that create tension between the pursuit of renewable energy and heritage protection, wind turbines are probably the most visible and challenging examples to consider. The renewable energy industry promotes positive messages about wind turbines, emphasizing their fresh appearance and futuristic designs in association with positive ecological messages. The author recalls, for example, the stage design for Chanel’s international spring fashion show during Paris Fashion Week in 2013 that featured rows of wind turbines with a solar panel floor through which models paraded as if they were walking through a space forest (Fig. 9.1). When compared to ordinary structures, the design of wind turbines may make them more acceptable in terms of form, volume and height—and worthy of inspiring the stage set for the Paris fashion show. Their scenic quality may also be worthy of awards for design achievement or for their contribution to the environment, and may even be elevated to the point of eventually receiving acknowledgement of heritage status. On the other hand, wind farms have a significant impact on the landscape. A few years ago, when the author was traveling by train in a European country, wind turbines were visible on every hill, mountain and field. Is it the traveler’s selfish wish to enjoy nature without such interference? Wind power generation is considered the most ecological and cost-effective energy source among the renewable energy technologies available at present. Yet it is unclear how prepared we are to weigh the right to enjoy heritage landscapes against the right to pursue green energy. Is it acceptable for international and national strategies that respond to the cautionary warnings about global warming to override concerns of local communities, not only with regard to landscape interference but also to physical impacts of noise and other problematic factors that may cost people their health and reduce their property values? 2

Ibid., 146; see also chapter 4 in this volume.

9 Wind Turbines and Landscape: Towards Sustainable Development

143

Fig. 9.1 Illustration of the stage design at Chanel’s Spring 2013 fashion show in Paris, France with wind turbines and solar panel floor. Drawing by Nobuko Inaba

Several years have passed since these issues were discussed at the 2013 Montreal Round Table but the questions are still pertinent and so far unresolved, as large wind turbine projects are escalating both in number and scale as part of renewable energy strategies that are internationally accepted. How ultimately should society balance the use of our land on this earth between renewable energy development and sustainable landscape protection for future generations? It is unfortunate that those engaged in the protection of heritage landscapes are still struggling to find a rationale for persuading different stakeholders in the larger social context to support landscape conservation. This chapter opens with a summary of the Montreal discussion and updates the debate with recent case studies in Japan where the author lives. It concludes with current initiatives to find a way forward.

9.2 Montreal Round Table Discussions In recognition of the challenge of balancing two public goods, the 2013 Round Table set out to explore methods, approaches and principles to accommodate the installation of wind farms while conserving the cultural value of landscapes. This balancing act responds to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to include culture

144

N. Inaba

as a tool in global development strategies.3 The meeting questioned whether those involved in producing renewable green energy took into consideration the cultural dimensions of their projects. Participants considered the Canadian context that illustrated efforts to reconcile these two public goods. Canada has seen a rapid increase in the implantation of wind farms in rural areas. Their installation often gives rise to community protests and demonstrations. On the one hand, Canadians recognize the benefits of wind energy— green, sustainable, fostering rural economic development; on the other hand, they have concerns related to health, disturbed ecosystems, decreased property values and negative impacts on visual integrity. Despite the existence of several manuals and guidance documents, there is no general agreement on what constitutes negative visual impacts on buildings and landscapes, and no accepted methodology for assessing such impacts.4 Participants at the Montreal Round Table discussed national and international policies, tools and examples that demonstrate governmental failure to deal with impacts of the exponential growth of wind farms. As an example, in 2013 the United Kingdom had more offshore wind turbines than the rest of the world combined. Their installation resulted in public protests, especially for large turbines inserted in culturally important and celebrated English landscapes. The government placed a higher priority on sustainable development than on heritage, delegating planning approval to local authorities who generally lacked financial resources to undertake strategic territorial planning to guide wind farm proposals.5 In the early twenty-first century, many governments introduced legislation that gave over-riding priority to renewable energy projects, thereby exempting them from existing legislated planning frameworks. The wind-farm industry was wellorganized. Developers and governments alike promoted wind farms, not only for economic regeneration and the production of clean energy, but especially for their community benefits at the local level. They argued that wind farms would be levers for rural economic development, a benefit that would transform landscapes into an economic resource. They depicted the implantation of wind turbines as territorial projects with a focus on the needs and lifestyles of local inhabitants. Typically, large outside corporations established partnerships with local groups, putting the onus on local leadership to make choices that would have long-term impacts on the community and its environment. This community-based approach is in line with the model of the European Landscape Convention that emphasizes the benefits of landscape “as perceived by people.”6 Noting that social acceptability increases when communities assume ownership and governance of wind farms, Round Table participants nonetheless cautioned that small rural communities were not usually well equipped to participate

3

United Nations, “Agenda 2030.” Cameron and Herrmann, Wind Turbines and Landscape, 9, 34. 5 Ibid., 144. 6 Council of Europe, European Landscape Convention, art. 1a. 4

9 Wind Turbines and Landscape: Towards Sustainable Development

145

in a meaningful way in the identification of values and the protection of culturally significant landscapes. From the perspective of heritage practitioners, participants observed that existing planning frameworks and other tools were not adequate to support communities in their decision-making. Loss of visual integrity—a term that remains poorly defined— has the most negative impact of wind farms on the landscape. For those involved in heritage conservation, existing tools are insufficient to protect important views and perspectives. Current heritage practice has not yet developed management models to control views beyond site boundaries and to capture their intangible associative values. Within an international context, the World Heritage monitoring system is not adapted to considering heritage on a territorial scale, since the World Heritage Convention focuses on properties within their defined boundaries. In addition, legal frameworks in many countries are not designed to control broad landscapes. In the case of Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay in France, the landscape issue goes beyond visibility and co-visibility to include the intangible values of views. To address this new phenomenon, France is exploring concepts like “areas of landscape influence” and “turbine exclusion zones” that would not be regulated but would be promoted through technical guidance.7 In view of these shortcomings, Round Table participants evaluated two possible tools to achieve a balance between landscape protection and wind farm development, namely impact assessment methodologies and a cultural landscape approach.

9.3 Heritage Impact Assessment Impact assessment tools are designed to identify negative threats to existing values of a property or place. The emerging process of heritage impact assessment is modelled on well-established environmental impact assessment systems that have never adequately considered impacts on cultural heritage. As a technical advisor to the World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS prepared advice on cultural heritage impact assessment in its 2011 publication Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties.8 At the time, discussion at the Montreal Round Table focused on the limitations of this guidance, noting that it was designed to protect the attributes of the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage sites as approved by the World Heritage Committee at the time of inscription. As such, the ICOMOS guidance has a built-in bias for preserving the status quo rather than providing space for accommodating changes and the addition of new values.

7

UNESCO, “World Heritage Committee, thirty-sixth session,” 7B, 74. https://whc.unesco .org/en/decisions/4735; Cameron and Herrmann, Wind Turbines and Landscape, 147. 8 ICOMOS, Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments.

146

N. Inaba

A recent critical analysis of methods for conducting heritage impact assessment confirms and deepens this view.9 Patiwael, Groote and Vanclay identify three possible discourses that could influence guidance on heritage impact assessment: preservation, conservation and planning. The three frameworks are distinguished by the degree of flexibility towards change. Preservation focuses on maintaining the materiality of a heritage property, conservation supports purposeful preservation for continued useful existence, and planning looks towards community and consumer demand for acceptable change. The authors argue that the preservation discourse underpins the ICOMOS guidance document, with an implicit bias towards protecting the status quo and rejecting any changes. While ICOMOS continues to examine the question through additional research, in cooperation with UNESCO and the other World Heritage Advisory Bodies,10 its 2011 guidance is not particularly helpful to achieve a balance between two public goods, as in cases like the implantation of wind farms. Patiwael, Groote and Vanclay rightly conclude that consideration of the various discourses would improve the effectiveness of heritage impact assessment that “could be used as a tool to balance heritage protection with spatial development rather than simply protect heritage from spatial development.”11

9.4 Cultural Landscape Approach The Montreal Round Table debated at length the possible positive contribution of applying a cultural landscape approach to proposed wind farm developments in order to manage important viewscapes.12 This approach promotes a method of landscape management that considers both cultural and natural resources in a holistic way and welcomes change in the landscape that adds value to the existing territory. A cultural landscape approach necessarily involves communities as leaders in mediating landscapes and casts heritage professionals in the role of accompanying them in the process. Using a cultural landscape perspective allows for additional new layers in the landscape and focuses attention on determining appropriate sizes, numbers and locations of—in this case—wind turbines. The key issue is social acceptability, a goal that requires time in order to foster citizen debate and build consensus. This approach presents a challenge for professionals who are used to providing expert advice but not used to facilitating community consultation processes. The negative visual impact of churning turbines in the landscape presents the greatest impediment to public acceptability of wind farms. A key tool in working with a cultural landscape approach is cultural mapping. This is a specific activity that 9

Patiwael, Groote and Vanclay, “Improving Heritage Impact Assessment,” 334–7. Since the writing of this chapter, the UNESCO and the World Heritage Advisory Bodies have published a resource manual providing new guidance on heritage impact analysis for both cultural and natural heritage. UNESCO et al., Guidance and Toolkit for Impact Assessments, 1–87. 11 Patiwael, Groote and Vanclay, “Improving Heritage Impact Assessment,” 342. 12 Cameron and Herrmann, Wind Turbines and Landscape, 147–8. 10

9 Wind Turbines and Landscape: Towards Sustainable Development

147

heritage conservation practitioners could initiate. They could contribute positively to the sustainability of landscapes by developing integrated maps to overlay cultural and social values on existing wind energy cartography that already identifies locations with high wind potential. Proactive leadership in alerting developers to existing cultural and social values in rural landscapes could guide the location of wind farms and hence contribute to more appropriate proposals with greater acceptability.

9.5 Policy on Renewable Energy and Landscape Protection: Case Studies from Japan Japan offers important examples of efforts to balance two public goods, namely landscape and seascape protection with green energy. The transition to renewable energy is the key policy priority in the national energy plan in Japan and various schemes have been implemented. Due to Japan’s climatic and geographical characteristics, the wind conditions on the land are not stable. As a result, in the past wind power generation was not as actively pursued as a renewable energy resource in comparison with solar power. However, the situation changed in 2018 when the Japanese government enacted a law to promote offshore renewable energy generation based on wind turbine systems.13 Before the 2018 law was established, the Ministry of Environment had been producing various documents to guide wind power generation, not only for offshore projects but also for impact assessments and mitigation measures in general, including noise and vibration, bird strikes and landscape. In addition, the department released a standard-setting document for the environmental impact assessments required by law. In particular, in the case of landscape control, in 2013 it produced detailed technical guidelines on how to evaluate the impact of wind turbines on the views in national and quasi-national parks, examining the relationships between turbines and the natural objects to be protected such as mountain peaks, lakes and rivers or their skylines, and their viewsheds.14 In 2016 and 2017, the ministry also conducted a model project to examine zoning methods for wind farm projects both on land and in offshore areas. As a result, it produced a zoning manual in 2018 to guide local authorities in how to determine areas for the promotion of wind power based on the care of the environment, including landscape protection (Fig. 9.2). The 2018 law was prepared to sort out the competing interests arising from the increase of local offshore wind turbines projects. Since then, large-scale wind-turbine projects have come to dominate the offshore as the main component of a national Japanese strategy to pursue renewable energy. Policy direction underpinning the law came from the Prime Minister of Japan, with responsibility for the implementation

13

Japan, “Act on Promoting the Utilization of Sea Areas for the Development of Marine Renewable Energy Power Generation Facilities;” “Official Explanation of Technological Standards.” 14 Japan, Technical Guideline on Examination of Wind Farms.

148

N. Inaba Impact: high possibility The skyline is cut and the visual angle is large. Impact: low Not located in the main view direction and the visual angle is under 0.5⁰

Impact: high possibility Located in the view target and the visual angle is large Impact: possible Located in the view target but the visual angle is not large

Impact: high possibility Located in the view target and cuts the skyline

Skyline (view component element)

Mountain (view target)

Existing structures near viewpoint

Existing forests near viewpoint

Urban area

Lake (view target) Main view direction viewshed Impact: possible Located in the main view direction but not located in the view target and the visual angle is low

Impact: high possibility Located in the main view direction and the view angle is high

Impact: possible Not located in the main view direction but the visual angle is over 0.5⁰ Original texts in Japanese. English translation by the author.

Fig. 9.2 Diagram showing how to identify the degree of disturbance of views by wind turbines. Diagram from the Technical Guideline on Examination of Wind Farms in National and QuasiNational Parks, Ministry of Environment, Japan, 2013. https://www.env.go.jp/press/files/jp/21843. pdf

of the law to be shared by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT). The basic structure of the law sets a framework to investigate and identify areas in the sea with potential to generate effective wind power. It lays down prerequisite conditions for conservation of the sea environment and maritime safety. More significantly, the law requires that development proposals address existing local interests and concerns, including the fishing rights of local fishermen. After these concerns are met, the law calls for official designation of the zones, solicitation and selection of the companies, identification of conditions and eventually the granting of sole longterm exclusive occupancy and usage rights. To designate the areas, the responsible ministers for METI and MLIT are required to consult the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and other cabinet ministers, as well as the affected governors. In addition, the law stipulates that joint councils composed of ministers, governors, mayors and local fishermen’s unions, other interested local parties and residents may be established to sort out the opinions reflected in the final decision for area designation and to formulate the conditions for project execution. If the council is not established, the relevant governors are able to request the establishment of a council. With regard to heritage protection, the Japanese law stipulates that consideration of the impact on the sea environment is required. This includes not only issues related to nature conservation but also to seascapes and landscapes. In addition to preliminary surveys, the ministers for METI and MLIT must consult the Minister

9 Wind Turbines and Landscape: Towards Sustainable Development

149

of Environment with regard to matters covered by the Natural Parks Law and the Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology with regard to the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties. At the joint councils of the authorities and the representatives of local stakeholders mentioned above, the opinions on environmental and heritage conservation concerns are analyzed and integrated into the final documents. Before implementation of the projects, companies are required to conduct environmental impact assessments. As of July 2020, five areas have been designated as Promotion Zones for the Development of Marine Renewable Energy Power Generation Facilities under the law and ten zones are in the preparatory stage through investigation and consultation. Two Examples: Nagasaki and Choshi How then have heritage landscape issues been treated in the designation process of these chosen areas? Two case studies are introduced to respond to this question. One is related to a World Heritage site and the other to a Place of Scenic Beauty designated under the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties. The first example is a wind farm project planned in the proposed promotion zone in the offshore area of Eshima Island, Saikai City, Nagasaki Prefecture. It is located far beyond the buffer zones of the World Heritage site of Hidden Christian Sites in the Nagasaki Region (Japan) but it is observable in views from the site. As a result, the promotion zone was brought to the authorities’ attention to be discussed at the highest level. The ministries of METI and MLIT officially announced this concern in July 2019 at the initial stage of the zoning process, cautioning that “the environmental coordination needs to avoid causing any problems in terms of the relationships with the World Heritage sites.”15 It is noteworthy and encouraging that the authorizing departments made a public announcement about issues related to the World Heritage site. It is a rare example of responsible departments publicly acknowledging concerns about the impact on the landscape of a cultural heritage site. At the outset, it should be pointed out that the area was selected as a promotion zone for wind power generation projects through the above-mentioned model zoning project conducted by the Ministry of Environment in 2018. In the same year, the property called Hidden Christian Sites in the Nagasaki Region was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2018. The recommendations adopted by the World Heritage Committee at the time of inscription included the requirement to carry out heritage impact assessments for new development projects within the property.16 The official approval for the establishment of the council for consultation composed of the national and local authorities, fisheries managers and other interested bodies was issued in July 2020. In advance, before the final area designation and public tender, preliminary EIA and HIA of the proposals were conducted. As an example, the following is an explanation of the HIA process for one of the proposals. The project is comprised of twenty-five wind turbines with heights from 201 to 211 meters. The turbines were to be located between eleven and twenty-two kilometers 15

Japan, METI. “Promising Sea Areas,” 4. UNESCO, “World Heritage Committee, forty-second session,” 8B, 22. https://whc.unesco .org/en/decisions/7135 16

150

N. Inaba

away from the protected areas of three components of the Nagasaki World Heritage site. Despite the distance, citizens and a local private group had discussed concerns about the project, including whether the turbines might be visible from the site. As a result, government decided that a separate HIA was necessary, along with the regular EIA, even though the turbines are located outside the protected areas and beyond the buffer zones discussed at the World Heritage Committee. The impact assessment for heritage was carried out by identifying viewpoints and assessing the visibility of wind turbines from these viewpoints. Sixty-four viewpoints were chosen, divided into four groups categorized according to their importance for the values of the World Heritage site related to the migration history of hidden Christians. Specifically, the four groups were comprised of viewpoints from the historically important axes between component parts of the World Heritage site, from close background views of the component parts, and from important elements in the component areas necessary to understand the attributes of the site, as well as views connecting the historical background to other general views. No new methodologies were used for heritage landscape impact assessment. Instead, existing methodologies from other landscape assessment systems were employed and photographic montages were made to estimate vertical and horizontal angles, distances and heights. The results of the assessment confirmed that no negative visual impact was anticipated, although some small visual changes would occur. The results of the HIA were examined by a committee composed of external experts and confirmed by the World Heritage management committee of the prefecture. Based on these preparatory studies, the area is now in the final stages of official national designation as an offshore wind-power generation promotion zone. The second case study concerns the designation of the Choshi offshore renewable energy promotion zone in Choshi City, Chiba prefecture. In this example, the promotion zone designation has already been completed and the process has advanced to the stage of setting up conditions for implementing the projects and selecting companies. The consultation with other ministries has been finished and the report of the joint council between the national and local authorities and stakeholders has already been submitted. The conditions will be issued based on the results of these consultation processes. At Choshi, there are protected heritage sites near the proposed promotion zone. The consultation report directs the implementation bodies to conduct a professional survey, estimation and assessment based on objective evidence of the cultural, environmental and geoscientific values of the Byobugaura site designated as a national Place of Scenic Beauty and Natural Monuments, the quasi-national park and others, and to take proper measures to mitigate the impact identified from these assessments. ICOMOS Japan has communicated its concern regarding the proposal, but the legal foundation for heritage impact assessment has not yet been established. It is unknown how this recommendation from the consultation report could be implemented, preferably independently or even within the legally-required environmental impact assessment. Due to the implicit priority given to the status of international designation, the Choshi case may not get the same attention from the authorities as the World Heritage site at Nagasaki (Fig. 9.3).

9 Wind Turbines and Landscape: Towards Sustainable Development

151

Fig. 9.3 Ukiyoe print by Utagawa Hiroshige depicting the beach of Choshi in Shimosa Province, Japan. Photograph from the collection of the National Diet Library, Japan, Famous Places in the Sixty Odd Provinces, 1853. It is feared that wind turbines have negative impact on this historicaly known scenic view

9.6 Wind Turbines and Landscape: Handling the Trade-Offs As these examples demonstrate, prerequisite conditions for large-scale offshore wind energy developments in Japan include security of environmental conservation and safety on the sea as well as respect for the rights and opinions of local stakeholders including fishermen and residents. One could argue that these conditions are ordinary base-line requirements that should apply in any country. But discussions at the Montreal Round Table raised two important points that are still not resolved. One is how far we are able to control views and landscapes outside designated protection zones and how far should we go in attempting to do so. The other is the relationship between established environmental impact assessment methods and the emerging process for heritage impact assessment. With regard to the second issue, there is an accumulated body of experience involving methodologies to minimize and mitigate environmental impacts. But the

152

N. Inaba

assessment of the environmental impact of wind turbines typically relies on opinions from people who are not specialists in the field of cultural heritage. A challenging question that has been pursued in various fields and groups is how to explain clearly the role of culture in supporting sustainable development, in this instance wind farms. This is a critical issue for heritage practitioners. So far, it would appear that voices and arguments for cultural heritage values are still not reaching the authorities and the corporations who are promoting wind turbine projects. The breakdown in communication between the wind farm industry and heritage advocates was illustrated by the absence of an industry voice at the Montreal Round Table. In an attempt to bring together these points of view, the host of the Round Table extended an invitation to the Canadian Wind Energy Association to join the conversation. This organization representing wind farm developers had published several guides and manuals on best practices, including one that states that, with regard to the effects of wind turbines on the scenic qualities of landscapes, there are “no standardized methods for visual impact assessments in Canada.”17 Despite initial enthusiasm from a representative of the association to participate in the discussions, the line subsequently went dead. As a result, no representative attended the meeting and hence an opportunity for dialogue between industry and heritage conservation was lost. It would have been a good chance to hear the association’s views on the issues. The current discussions on offshore renewable energy in Japan can be seen as touchstones for heritage practitioners to gauge how far the larger environmental impact assessment system can go to achieve social responsibility. The projects at the Choshi offshore renewable energy promotion zone will be finished by 2022. The answer to this question will come from the community’s judgement of the results. With a view to clarifying this still-murky issue, UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre has recently developed further guidance on wind energy installations, using funds from the Netherlands Funds-in-Trust. The 2021 publication focuses on impact assessment in the context of practices from four European countries.18 In line with discussions at the Montreal Round Table, this project focused on seeking solutions that balance the two public goods of sustainable green energy and conservation of heritage values. The project description outlines the goals for the guidance tool for wind turbine projects: “[the project aims to] identify ways in which renewable energy initiatives and World Heritage protection could go hand in hand. It also aims to assist developing national strategies for the evaluation process of these project proposals in relation to the protection of World Heritage values, and World Heritage site management in general.”19

17

Cameron and Herrmann, Wind Turbines and Landscape, 9. UNESCO, World Heritage and Wind Energy, 1-91. 19 UNESCO, “Renewable Energy Transition.” 18

9 Wind Turbines and Landscape: Towards Sustainable Development

153

9.7 Conclusion The 2013 Montreal Round Table explored a number of issues related to wind farms, including the fact that they are not self-sufficient but form part of an integrated system of energy generation and that their expansion is inevitable. Participants concluded that sites with strong winds will be occupied in perpetuity by wind farms, with old turbines making way for technologically more sophisticated ones over time. It is evident that there is a paradigm shift in the role of heritage practitioners, from providers of expertise to facilitators of community consultations. The creation of consultation models that could define intangible, aesthetic and social values would contribute to a more robust approach to managing the implantation of wind turbines in the landscape. The need for clear guidance on heritage impact assessment is critical and urgent. In the meantime, heritage practitioners could take action by supporting the development of long-term plans for sustainable land-use covering a long timeframe. The involvement of public, private, expert and non-governmental sectors in the preparation of such land-use plans, especially for the windiest sites, would create a mechanism that would allow for a predictable process for achieving the dual goals of sustainable energy and landscape protection.

Nobuko Inaba doctorate in architecture, professor emeritus, taught World Heritage Studies at the University of Tsukuba from 2008 to 2020. Trained as a conservation architect, she previously served with the Japanese government’s Agency for Cultural Affairs and its institution from 1991 to 2008. She has worked with the World Heritage Convention since Japan’s ratification in 1992. Her public advisory role continues from policy development to conservation of individual sites both domestic and international.

Chapter 10

Journeys at the Intersection of Culture and Nature: Towards Integrated Approaches to Conservation Nora J. Mitchell

Abstract Over the last decade, there has been a growing awareness that a diverse array of important heritage values created by the interaction of people and place have been overlooked. This chapter examines how the international heritage conservation community has gradually incorporated interrelationships of culture and nature in the implementation of the 1972 World Heritage Convention. Recognition of cultural landscapes has been an important milestone on the journey to reshape conservation practice. Even so, learning to bridge the nature-culture divide is a work in progress and additional guidance is needed for many places. Recent experience has demonstrated that advancing a more integrated nature-culture approach benefits from a collaborative leadership environment that includes ICOMOS, IUCN and other international partners working with and learning from community-based conservation initiatives. Through collaboration a more inclusive and interdisciplinary approach to heritage conservation practice can be intentionally developed to achieve more sustainable and equitable conservation outcomes. Keywords Cultural landscapes · Nature-culture divide · Collaborative leadership · Community-based conservation · Interdisciplinarity · Equitable conservation

10.1 Introduction In 2012, Pimachiowin Aki, a large boreal forest site in Canada that is home to First Nations Anishinaabe communities was nominated to the World Heritage List (Fig. 10.1). The close interconnection of people and place is demonstrated by the Indigenous expression “Land is reflected in us; we are reflected in the land.”1 The World Heritage

1

Cameron and Herrmann, Exploring the Cultural Value, 10.

N. J. Mitchell (B) University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Cameron (ed.), Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century, Creativity, Heritage and the City 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2_10

155

156

N. J. Mitchell

Fig. 10.1 Pimachiowin Aki, Canada was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2018 for natural and cultural values. It served as a catalyst for further consideration of how to effectively address the interactions of culture and nature during evaluation of World Heritage sites. Photograph © IUCN/Bastian Bertzky

Committee noted that the challenges of evaluating this site raised fundamental questions of how “the indissoluble bonds that exist in some places between culture and nature” can be recognized on the World Heritage List and asked for research on this issue.2 In 2014, this topic was selected as the focus for a University of Montreal Round Table. The findings of the 2014 Round Table acknowledged the long-standing separation of cultural and natural heritage in the conceptual foundations, framework, and implementation procedures of the World Heritage Convention.3 This culture-nature divide, generally attributed to the influence of Western thought, has been widespread and resistant to change even though some cultures and countries do not share this perspective.4 After examining the progress made in bridging the divide, Round Table participants concluded that more work remains to guide conservation of World Heritage sites with complex interwoven relationships between culture and nature. There was also general agreement that learning to bridge the culture-nature divide was critical for the future of World Heritage and for conservation more broadly.5

2

UNESCO, “Reflections,” par. A.1. Cameron and Herrmann, Exploring the Cultural Value, 1–177; Mitchell, “Exploring the Cultural Value of Nature,” 65–8. 4 Buckley and Badman, “Nature + Culture,” 107; Larsen and Wijesuriya, “Nature-Culture,” 142–4, 149. 5 Mitchell, “Exploring the Cultural Value of Nature,” 65–8, 73–4. 3

10 Journeys at the Intersection of Culture and Nature: Towards Integrated …

157

Now, several years on, this chapter revisits the issue at a time when there is growing awareness that landscapes throughout the world have a diverse array of heritage values created by the interaction of people and place. While there has been some progress since the 2014 Round Table, the current conceptual and practical framework for heritage conservation does not yet provide adequate guidance for places with interlinkages of culture and nature. There is increasing recognition that more interdisciplinary and integrated approaches to heritage conservation practice must be adopted to achieve more effective, sustainable, and equitable conservation outcomes.6 This chapter examines how the international heritage conservation community has gradually incorporated the interrelationship of culture and nature in the implementation of the 1972 World Heritage Convention. The convention, the first international instrument to address both cultural and natural heritage, has become a major influence on heritage conservation globally.7 Changes to the implementation of the convention over time illustrate how World Heritage conservation practices have evolved—and continue to evolve—to more fully recognize the interaction of culture and nature. The first section of this chapter provides a brief historical overview of key milestones that advanced the understanding of the relationship of culture and nature during the early years of implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Particular attention is focused on the formal recognition of cultural landscapes as heritage in 1992. This recognition was an important step in developing a more comprehensive approach to the integration of culture and nature. However, despite the significant progress that this represents, further integration was still needed to address a broader, more complex definition of heritage, as demonstrated by the evaluation of Pimachiowin Aki.8 The chapter’s second section reflects on the evaluation of the Pimachiowin Aki nomination and some of the lessons learned in that process. The next part reviews several recent initiatives, launched over the last ten years that are providing valuable insights for conservation practitioners to better understand and integrate the complex interconnections of culture and nature in their work with World Heritage. These initiatives illustrate a new level of collaboration between two World Heritage Advisory Bodies, the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), to advance a more holistic approach to implementing the Convention. The chapter concludes by reflecting on changes in heritage practice and some promising directions to advance a more integrated culture-nature approach to conservation.

Buckley and Badman, “Nature + Culture,” 106-112; Brown, “Bringing Together,” 33-41; Gavin et al., “Defining biocultural,” 140-4; Larsen and Wijesuriya, “Nature-Culture,” 142-51; Brown, “A few short journeys,” 38-41; Gavin et al., “Effective biodiversity,” 1846–56. 7 Cameron and Rössler, Many Voices, 103. 8 Buckley and Badman, “Nature + Culture,” 113–4; Cameron, “Entre chien,” 66–72; Leitão and Badman, “Opportunities,” 87–8. 6

158

N. J. Mitchell

10.2 Milestones on a Journey Cultural and natural heritage are both included in the 1972 World Heritage Convention, an international treaty designed to conserve places of value to all people and transmit this heritage to future generations. As noted in the text of the convention, during the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a growing awareness that both cultural and natural heritage were increasingly threatened by “changing social and economic conditions… [and that] deterioration or disappearance of any item of the cultural or natural heritage constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world.”9 While both cultural and natural heritage conservation are part of the convention, they were viewed as parallel efforts rather than as a cohesive, interdependent culture-nature concept.10 While some have observed that the convention was ahead of its time by including both culture and nature, it was of its time by reflecting an intellectual construct with a duality of culture and nature that prevailed in many of the countries instrumental in drafting the convention, including Europe, the United States and Canada.11 The convention’s separate definitions of cultural and natural heritage established a conceptual dichotomy that has proven resistant to change.12 These definitions of two types of heritage guide the way the convention is implemented and, in particular, they are the basis for defining the criteria for World Heritage inscription. While the text of the convention itself is not easily changed, the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention have undergone periodic amendment by the World Heritage Committee to address new concepts and approaches for the identification and conservation of heritage. The ten criteria for site evaluation were initially developed in the late 1970s based on the two definitions of heritage; six of the criteria related to cultural heritage and four to natural heritage, each requiring different fields of expertise. It soon became general operational practice for ICOMOS to review nominations based on “cultural” criteria and IUCN to review nominations based on “natural” criteria. In the 1980s, the Advisory Bodies worked with this dichotomy that continued to reinforce the separation of culture and nature in heritage conservation practice. As a consequence, many of the early inscriptions to the World Heritage List were either monuments and archeological sites without identification of any associated natural values, or sites representing a pristine view of nature as wilderness without addressing any associated cultural values. In 1984, the concept of “rural landscapes” was introduced to the World Heritage Committee by Lucien Chabason, French delegate and rapporteur. He explained that this type of humanized landscape had been shaped by centuries of historic land use that created places with “outstanding characteristics, for example the rice 9

UNESCO, “Convention 1972,” preamble. Cameron and Rössler, Many Voices, 1–26; Leitão and Badman, “Opportunities,” 76–7. 11 Cameron and Rössler, Many Voices, 1–26. 12 UNESCO, “Convention 1972,” art. 1–2; Buckley and Badman, “Nature + Culture,” 107–8; Denyer, “The Cultural Value,” 26–7; Leitão and Badman, “Opportunities,” 75–9. 10

10 Journeys at the Intersection of Culture and Nature: Towards Integrated …

159

Fig. 10.2 The English Lake District, United Kingdom served as a test case for the inclusion of rural landscapes on the World Heritage List in the 1980s and was inscribed in 2017 for cultural values alone. Photograph by Nora Mitchell

terraces of Java or the Philippines which respond to the spirit of the Convention.”13 UNESCO’s Michel Batisse argued that rural landscapes “possess both cultural and natural attributes which, by their combination, offer something exceptional and of universal value.”14 He contended that these rural landscapes should be eligible for the World Heritage List but recognized that they were not readily able to be considered within the dichotomous framework. Importantly, the discussion on rural landscapes focused attention on the interaction of culture and nature. It launched a discussion at the 1984 World Heritage Committee meeting that revealed different perspectives among ICOMOS, IUCN and UNESCO. Over the next several years, two different nominations of the English Lake District served as a test case for the inclusion of rural landscapes (Fig. 10.2). After several intense debates, the Committee decided that the criteria were not sufficiently clear for this type of property “which contained a synergetic combination of cultural and natural elements.”15 In response, the Committee requested further study. In 1992, an expert group with diverse expertise and backgrounds from ICOMOS, IUCN and others convened at La Petite Pierre (France) to prepare a proposal for the inclusion of cultural landscapes for consideration at the committee’s next meeting later that year.16 The term cultural landscape replaced rural landscape since the term “cultural landscape” more directly referenced the definition of cultural heritage in 13

Cameron and Rössler, Many Voices, 60–2. Ibid., 65. 15 Ibid., 64–7. 16 Ibid., 67–8; Buggey, “Cultural Landscapes,” 53–66; Brown, “World Heritage,” 29–37. 14

160

N. J. Mitchell

Table 10.1 World Heritage definitions of cultural and natural heritage. Text from UNESCO, World Heritage Convention, 1972, art. 1–2 Article 1 For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered “cultural heritage”: • Monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of history, art or science; • Groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of history, art or science; • Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of Outstanding Universal Value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view Article 2 For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered “natural heritage”: • Natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of Outstanding Universal Value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view; • Geological and physiological formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation; • Natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty

the convention.17 This pivotal meeting, following a decade of discussion, proposed that cultural landscapes be considered as “sites”—a type of cultural property—as they represented “the combined works of nature and of man,” a phrase included in the definition of cultural heritage in the convention (see Table 10.1).18 Based on this finding, the group at La Petite Pierre drafted a definition and three categories of cultural landscapes, and proposed amendments to the inscription criteria and several other sections of the Operational Guidelines.19 In the guidelines, “cultural landscapes are cultural properties…[that] are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal.”20 The Operational Guidelines also note that “the term ‘cultural landscape’ embraces a diversity of manifestations of the interaction between humankind and its natural environment,” placing the emphasis on the interaction of culture and nature [italics added].21 Three categories of cultural landscapes were identified: landscapes intentionally designed, organically evolved landscapes shaped by cultural activities and livelihoods, and associative landscapes with powerful connections to natural 17

Cameron, “Entre chien,” 64–5. UNESCO, “Convention 1972,” art. 1. 19 UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2019,” par. 47 and Annex 3, par. 6–13. 20 Ibid., par. 47. 21 Ibid., Annex 3, par. 8. 18

10 Journeys at the Intersection of Culture and Nature: Towards Integrated …

161

elements. These categories have remained largely unchanged since 1992.22 With remarkable speed, this proposal was adopted six weeks later at the sixteenth meeting of the World Heritage Committee and subsequently included in the 1994 revisions to the Operational Guidelines. With these changes, the World Heritage Convention became the first international agreement to recognize and protect cultural landscapes. Ironically, at the same time as the World Heritage Committee meeting in 1992, IUCN proposed removing several phrases in the natural criteria that reflected interactions between nature and culture. IUCN considered these phrases to be inconsistent with the definition of natural heritage in the convention.23 The Committee agreed and removed the phrase “man’s interaction with his natural environment” from thennatural criterion (ii) (now criterion [ix]) and “exceptional combinations of natural and cultural elements” from then-natural criterion (iii) (now criterion [vii]).24 These changes served to reinforce the culture-nature divide at a time when the recognition of cultural landscapes was creating a bridge between culture and nature. It was not until 2005 that reference to “human interaction with the environment” was reintroduced by adding this phrase to cultural criterion (v).25 In 1993, Tongariro National Park, previously listed under natural criteria only, became the first property to be inscribed as a cultural landscape on the World Heritage List under the revised criteria in recognition of its cultural and spiritual significance for M¯aori people of New Zealand (Fig. 10.3). Adrian Phillips, chair of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas at the time, later reflected that the re-nomination of Tongariro as a cultural landscape and, a year later, the re-nomination of Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park (Australia) marked a significant shift in the perception of the World Heritage Committee in accepting the cultural significance of these formerly World Heritage natural properties.26 Both of these places and associated Indigenous peoples, provide dramatic examples of the interaction of nature and culture. Susan Buggey (formerly with Parks Canada), one of the experts at the La Petite Pierre meeting, also remarked on the importance of recognizing associative landscapes and the intangible heritage of living traditions, cultural continuity of ongoing processes, and cultural connections to the natural environment.27 The addition of cultural landscapes—the evolved and associative categories, in particular—has proven to be valuable for recognizing the integral role of local and Indigenous communities. This change was reflected in a revision to the 1994 Operational Guidelines that acknowledged that customary law and traditional management of World Heritage sites by associated communities could meet the management requirements for inscription. In 1994, traditional management systems applied, but only to cultural sites. However, in 1998, spurred by the nomination of East Rennell 22

Ibid., Annex 3, par. 10. Cameron and Rössler, Many Voices, 68; UNESCO, “Convention 1972,” art. 2. 24 Leitão and Badman, “Opportunities,” 78. 25 Ibid., 79. 26 UNESCO, Canada Research Chair, World Heritage Oral Archives, Phillips. 27 Buggey, “Cultural Landscapes,” 58–61. 23

162

N. J. Mitchell

Fig. 10.3 In 1993, Tongariro National Park, New Zealand became the first property to be inscribed on the World Heritage List under revised criteria for cultural landscapes. The mountains at the heart of the park have cultural and religious significance for the M¯aori people and symbolize the spiritual links between this community and its environment. Photograph © UNESCO/S.A. Tabbasum

(Soloman Islands), the Committee extended recognition of traditional management systems to natural sites, another landmark decision.28 Recognition that these traditional systems represented effective stewardship was a substantive change in heritage practice leading to greater involvement of local and Indigenous communities in the conservation of World Heritage sites. This shift also advocated for the documentation of this form of management and acknowledged the importance of transmission of knowledge between generations. This is the first acceptance of customary law and management in an international legal instrument in the heritage field and further opened the convention to countries with traditional cultures, particularly from sub-Saharan Africa, the Pacific and the Caribbean regions.29 In 1994, the World Heritage Committee also amended its Operational Guidelines to emphasize that “participation of local people in the nomination process is essential to make them feel a shared responsibility with the State Party in the maintenance of the site.”30 This revision dramatically reversed previous guidance in the Operational Guidelines that discouraged community participation: “So as to maintain the objectivity of the evaluation process and to avoid possible embarrassment to those concerned, States Parties should refrain from giving undue publicity to the fact that a

28

Cameron and Rössler, Many Voices, 122. Ibid., 123. 30 Ibid., 122. 29

10 Journeys at the Intersection of Culture and Nature: Towards Integrated …

163

property has been nominated for inscription pending the final decisions of the [World Heritage] Committee.”31 The recognition of cultural landscapes was followed by another significant development that further addressed the interaction of culture and nature. In 1994, the Nara Conference on Authenticity was convened to examine what was largely a static, materials-based approach to authenticity. The Nara Document on Authenticity, adopted at the conference,32 stated that the dynamic processes and intangible dimensions of cultural heritage were to be taken into consideration when assessing authenticity, including “use and function; traditions, techniques and management systems; language and other forms of intangible heritage; and spirit and feeling.”33 After years of debate, this revised guidance on authenticity was formally incorporated into the 2005 Operational Guidelines.34 In summary, the introduction of the cultural landscape concept into the guidelines for the convention was a pivotal step in recognizing a broad array of tangible and intangible heritage associated with the interaction of culture and nature. The concept of cultural landscapes has proven to be adaptable to a wide variety of settings, scales and contexts around the world and particularly relevant to countries and societies with non-monumental heritage found in evolved and associative landscapes.35 Consequently, there has been a steady increase in the number of nominations for cultural landscapes from parts of the world such as Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean that had previously been underrepresented on the World Heritage List.36 By late 2022, there are 121 cultural landscapes on the World Heritage List from sixty-five States Parties reflecting a widespread global acceptance of cultural landscapes as heritage. Recognition of cultural landscapes at a global level broadened the definition of heritage and began to reshape conservation practice. A major influence of cultural landscapes was the recognition of the key role of Indigenous peoples and local communities in stewardship of their environment. As this section has demonstrated, conservation of cultural landscapes required modifications to existing conservation approaches in order to integrate tangible and intangible heritage, traditional knowledge systems and dynamic processes. With these shifts in conservation practice, a more comprehensive culture-nature conservation approach began to emerge. As a result, the recognition of cultural landscapes has led to meaningful progress in bridging the culture-nature divide. However, the decision to consider cultural landscapes as cultural properties only limited the recognition of the role of nature.37 Eventually, the application of the cultural landscape concept to large inhabited natural

31

Ibid., 122. ICOMOS, “Nara.”. 33 UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2019,” par. 82. 34 Ibid., par. 79–86. 35 Taylor et al., Conserving Cultural Landscapes, 5-11, 371-3. 36 Cameron and Rössler, Many Voices, 90–4. 37 Buckley and Badman, “Nature + Culture,” 114; Denyer, “The Cultural Value,” 30–2; Leitão and Badman, “Opportunities,” 75–83, 87–8. 32

164

N. J. Mitchell

areas such as Pimachiowin Aki created new challenges within the World Heritage system.38

10.3 Pimachiowin Aki: Catalyst for Advancing Integration of Culture and Nature In 2012, the World Heritage nomination of Pimachiowin Aki in the boreal forest of Canada put forward by five First Nations served as a catalyst for further consideration of how to effectively address the interactions of culture and nature.39 This vast boreal ecosystem of over twenty-nine thousand square kilometers in northern Canada has been home for over seven thousand years for the Anishinaabe First Nations who continue a living Indigenous cultural tradition Ji-ganawendamang Gidakiiminaan or “Keeping the Land” that still guides patterns of use.40 This large area was nominated as a mixed site representing both natural and cultural values and as a cultural landscape demonstrating interaction of culture and nature. The evaluation of this nomination was a lengthy and challenging process for the World Heritage Advisory Bodies. Large living landscapes where people are intertwined with vast ecosystems are inherently dynamic and complex. These characteristics required ICOMOS and IUCN to explore new ways to improve coordination of their evaluation processes, grapple with the application of inscription criteria, address resistance to comparative analyses by First Nations, and consider strategies for conservation of large-scale landscapes with multiple values.41 Given these evaluation and conservation issues, the World Heritage Committee in 2013 asked the World Heritage Centre to work with ICOMOS and IUCN to examine “how the indissoluble bonds that exist in some places between culture and nature can be recognized on the World Heritage List.”42 This request—similar to the one on rural landscapes in the 1980s—launched a five-year discussion on the nomination of Pimachiowin Aki. In this case, the Advisory Bodies sought to improve coordination of their evaluation processes and, more importantly, through their collaboration, gain a shared conceptual understanding of the interrelationship of culture and nature and the implications for World Heritage conservation practice. This ICOMOS-IUCN collaboration yielded positive results. By 2016, IUCN reported back to the World Heritage Committee: Despite, or perhaps because of the protracted evaluation process, this dialogue [on the nomination for Pimachiowin Aki] has advanced the thinking and evaluative practices of IUCN 38

Cameron, “Entre chien,” 69–72; Leitão and Badman, “Opportunities,” 87–88; see discussion on Pimachiowin Aki in the next section. 39 Four First Nations eventually submitted a successful nomination in 2018, as the fifth First Nation withdrew for technical reasons. 40 UNESCO, “Pimachiowin Aki.”. 41 Cameron, “Entre chien,” 69–72; Leitão and Badman, “Opportunities,” 75–6, 87–8. 42 UNESCO, “Reflections,” par. A.1.

10 Journeys at the Intersection of Culture and Nature: Towards Integrated …

165

and ICOMOS concerning nominations of sites for their nature/culture interactions, and has been a catalyst for a renewed and growing joint approach to the links between nature and culture in the World Heritage Convention involving all of the Advisory Bodies, the World Heritage Centre and a growing range of partners. This is a legacy for the Convention that goes beyond the individual nomination concerned.43

This report is notable as it offered the committee a critical appraisal of the separation of nature and culture in the 1972 Convention: “The views of IUCN and ICOMOS are that such separation of nature and of culture, based on the separate articles of the 1972 Convention, whilst providing administrative simplicity, do not represent a modern approach to heritage practice, and notably do not correspond to the ways in which many cultures, including those of traditional communities and Indigenous peoples, view the relationship between humankind and nature.”44 The interdisciplinary dialogue on the nomination helped to break down the traditional silos between nature conservation and cultural heritage. In IUCN’s evaluation, natural heritage is described as inclusive of long-term stewardship by the Anishinaabe First Nations, “who continue a tradition of living in, using and maintaining the landscape.” The report goes on to state that “the nature conservation values of Pimachiowin Aki are shaped by this long history of interaction [as these cultural practices have] influenced the nominated property’s natural systems and processes” [and consequently,] traditional use by Anishinaabeg, including sustainable fishing, hunting and trapping, is also an integral part of the boreal ecosystems in Pimachiowin Aki. [italics added]”45 Acknowledging this long history of cultural practices, IUCN also determined in their evaluation that the site was the most complete and largest example of the North American boreal shield with characteristic biodiversity and ongoing ecological and biological processes (criterion [ix]).46 In its 2018 evaluation, ICOMOS reminded the committee that it had previously noted in 2013 that “natural criteria cannot acknowledge the cultural value of communities in supporting natural value.”47 In response, the 2013 World Heritage Committee requested that the State Party explore whether “the spiritual relationship with nature that has persisted for generations between the Anishinaabe First Nations and Pimachiowin Aki might be considered exceptional and could … satisfy one or more cultural criteria.”48 Subsequently, in their review of the revised nomination in 2018, ICOMOS determined that the nominated property met two cultural criteria. ICOMOS judged that Pimachiowin Aki “provides an exceptional testimony to the continuing Anishinaabe cultural tradition of Ji-ganawendamang Gidakiiminaan (Keeping the Land)” (criterion [iii]), is “directly and tangibly associated with the living tradition and beliefs of the Anishinaabe” and still guides use of the land and

43

IUCN, IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2016, 143. UNESCO, “Reflections,” par. C.19. 45 IUCN, IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2018, 68, 70. 46 Ibid., 70–1. 47 ICOMOS, Evaluations 2018, 32. 48 Cited in ICOMOS, Evaluations 2018, 32. 44

166

N. J. Mitchell

waterways and continues their traditions of customary governance (criterion [vi]).49 With positive recommendations from ICOMOS and IUCN, Pimachiowin Aki was inscribed on the World Heritage List as a cultural landscape and a mixed site that meets both natural and cultural criteria.50 As these descriptions demonstrate, the role of Indigenous communities in Pimachiowin Aki was recognized as integral to sustaining the interconnected natural and cultural systems and values expressed by tangible and intangible heritage. This nomination serves as an important example since it came forward on the initiative of First Nations. IUCN observed that the “long-term significance for the work of the Convention lies also in its lessons about empowering Indigenous peoples to determine their own priorities for conservation…[and to recognize] the rights and role of Indigenous peoples in the Convention’s Operational Guidelines.”51 IUCN also suggested that this nomination could serve as a model for future nominations that seek to describe the indissoluble links between culture and nature.52 It is important to note that by 2015, the Operational Guidelines included a new section on a partnership approach to protection of World Heritage including nomination, management and monitoring.53 The partners in protection and conservation of World Heritage include “stakeholders, especially local communities, Indigenous peoples, governmental, non-governmental and private organizations and owners who have an interest and involvement in conservation and management of a World Heritage property.”54 Participation in the nomination process from a similar list of stakeholders is now included in the guidelines, updated from the revision in 1994.55 This section also asks the States Parties “to demonstrate, as appropriate, that the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous peoples has been obtained.”56 These revisions on community engagement in the Operational Guidelines reflect another important shift in heritage conservation practice. People from local and Indigenous communities are now more consistently acknowledged as stewards and, in some cases, rights holders of heritage and key partners in conservation in line with the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Consequently, governance systems that are rights-based and community-led have become increasingly important as a foundation for stewardship.57

49

ICOMOS, Evaluations 2018, 27–8. UNESCO, “Pimachiowin Aki.” 51 IUCN, IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2016, 143. 52 IUCN, IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2018, 70. 53 UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2019,” par. 39. 54 Ibid., par. 40. 55 Ibid., par. 123. 56 Ibid., par. 123. 57 Brown and Hay-Edie, Engaging Local Communities, 11–15; Brown, “Bringing Together,” 34–41; Cameron, “Entre chien,” 71–2; Gavin et al., “Defining biocultural,” 140–4; Larsen and Wijesuriya, “Nature-Culture,” 142–51; Gavin et al., “Effective biodiversity,” 1846–53. 50

10 Journeys at the Intersection of Culture and Nature: Towards Integrated …

167

At Pimachiowin Aki, protection and management of the World Heritage site are achieved through Anishinaabe customary governance based on the Indigenous cultural tradition Ji-ganawendamang Gidakiiminaan (Keeping the Land). The First Nations have joined with their provincial partners to create the Pimachiowin Aki Corporation, a coordinating management body and a participatory governance structure for conservation across the World Heritage site.58

10.4 Learning from Conservation Practice Given their successful collaboration on Pimachiowin Aki, the World Heritage Advisory Bodies launched a number of initiatives to continue to improve their joint work in areas of evaluation, conservation practice and professional training. While it is too soon to assess the overall effectiveness of these efforts in bridging the nature-culture divide, they represent a new level of ongoing cooperation that is very promising. Connecting Practice In 2013, ICOMOS and IUCN launched a collaborative project aimed at developing new conservation strategies that recognize and sustain the interconnected character of the natural and cultural values of World Heritage sites. The project is called “Connecting Practice: Defining New Methods and Strategies to Support Nature and Culture through Engagement in the World Heritage Convention” and has had multiple phases over the last ten years.59 A short-term goal of the project is to find ways to build shared approaches and better coordinate their roles as advisors to the World Heritage Committee. In the longer term, the goal is to gain a deeper understanding of interconnections of culture and nature and revise the conceptual and practical approaches for values assessment, governance and management within the implementation of the convention.60 This approach is intended to develop “a more genuinely integrated consideration of natural and cultural heritage under the World Heritage Convention—’bridging the divide’ that is often observed between nature and culture—overcoming the many unintended adverse outcomes that can result.”61 This project is designed to learn from current practice by having interdisciplinary project teams work directly with World Heritage sites that illustrate the interlinkage of culture and nature and where local and Indigenous communities play an important role in conservation. Based on progress to date, a conceptual framework and glossary of keywords have begun to emerge. Finding a shared language is particularly important for cross-cultural and interdisciplinary dialogue. In addition, one of the findings has been that existing World Heritage inscriptions often do not recognize the full array of interconnected natural and cultural values that exist within the sites. 58

IUCN, IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2018, 69; Pimachiowin, “Pimachiowin Aki.”. IUCN and ICOMOS, “Connecting Practice Project, Final Report [Phase I];” Leitão et al., Connecting Practice Phase II; IUCN and ICOMOS, “Connecting Practice Phase III;” ICOMOS, Connecting Practice. 60 Buckley and Badman, “Nature + Culture,” 116–7. 61 UNESCO, “Reflections,” par. C.23. 59

168

N. J. Mitchell

Even so, it is important to consider this wider complex of values, as collectively they may represent important culture-nature interactions.62 This type of holistic value assessment provides a deeper understanding of the overall significance and richness of a site that can be used to inform its governance and management for long-term conservation. Culture-Nature Journeys Concurrently, there have been a series of “CultureNature Journeys” examining how to better understand the interconnectedness of culture and nature, and to apply this understanding for more effective and lasting conservation. These journeys map a path to a series of related sessions within a conference and are collaboratively organized by key people and institutions from cultural and natural heritage fields. The journeys offer “a needed space for a deeper dialogue among a widening group of practitioners, researchers and stewards that find themselves stepping away from one or the other of the polarities of the natureculture continuum in search of more holistic practices.”63 The journeys have also contributed case studies that demonstrate that in many landscapes and waterscapes, cultural and natural heritage are inextricably linked and that successful conservation practice depends on better recognition of the entangled dimensions of culture and nature.64 Coordinated by a team from IUCN and ICOMOS, the inaugural Nature-Culture Journey was launched at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Hawai’i in 2016.65 Over forty sessions explored a broad array of conservation issues that demonstrate how integrating culture and nature is relevant to conservation practice in areas such as intangible heritage, agricultural landscapes, sacred landscapes, traditional ecological knowledge, community-led stewardship, traditional management systems and rights-based approaches.66 In 2017, ICOMOS and IUCN organized a similar Culture-Nature Journey as part of the Scientific Symposium at the Triennial ICOMOS General Assembly in New Delhi.67 Two declarations recognized the importance and urgency of this work, highlighted some of the findings and lessons learned, and called for continuation of the journey.68 The M¯alama Honua—to care for our Island Earth—Statement of the participants at the Nature-Culture Journey at the 2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress also called for “new working methods and practices that bring together nature and culture to achieve conservation outcomes on a landscape scale, while promoting the leadership, participation, resilience, and well-being of associated communities.”69 The 62

Leitão, “Bridging the Divide,” 203–7; Leitão et al., Connecting Practice Phase II, 13–15; Brown, “A few short journeys,” 39–41. 63 Brown, “A few short journeys,” 39. 64 Mitchell et al., “Nature-Culture,” 123–240; Mitchell et al., Proceedings. 65 IUCN, “World Heritage at the IUCN Congress;” ICOMOS, “ICOMOS & IUCN Partner.”. 66 Mitchell et al., “Nature-Culture,” 123–240. 67 IUCN, “From Hawai ‘i to Delhi;” McIntyre-Tamwoy, “Travelling,” 142–53. 68 IUCN, “M¯ alama Honua;” ICOMOS, “Yatra aur Tammanah;” McIntyre-Tamwoy,“Travelling,” 147–50; McIntyre-Tamwoy and Badman, “The CultureNature Journey,” 71–6. 69 IUCN, “M¯ alama Honua;” McIntyre-Tamwoy and Badman, “The CultureNature Journey,” 74–6.

10 Journeys at the Intersection of Culture and Nature: Towards Integrated …

169

declaration Yatra aur Tammanah—our purposeful journey—from the 2017 ICOMOS General Assembly outlined key principles and encouraged the organization of similar events across the globe.70 In response, several other journeys were held in 2018 in India, Fiji and the United States.71 Planning is underway for a Culture-Nature Journey as part of the 2023 ICOMOS Scientific Symposium in Sydney, Australia. World Heritage Leadership Program In 2016, the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) and IUCN initiated, in partnership with ICOMOS and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, a new leadership program developed specifically for heritage practitioners who face complexities associated with interconnected natural and cultural heritage.72 The World Heritage Leadership program focused its initial course in 2017 on “Addressing Nature-Culture Interlinkages in Managing World Heritage Sites.” This program acknowledges the need to rethink current approaches and is part of a larger initiative to revise and update World Heritage guidance on conservation to reflect the most current understanding on culture-nature interlinkages. Resource manuals, for example, previously developed for natural heritage separate from cultural heritage will be combined and made accessible through a web-based platform. The collaborative review of the Pimachiowin Aki nomination and the joint ICOMOS-IUCN initiatives benefitted from the other concurrent efforts to better understand the relationship of culture and nature and to advance a more integrated approach to conservation practice. These initiatives, alongside others over the last ten years, have created a sense of purpose, momentum, urgency, and community for further advancing heritage conservation that recognizes the interrelationship of culture and nature.

10.5 Reflections on Changes in Heritage Conservation Practice There has been considerable change in conservation practice since 1984, when the concept of “rural landscapes” was first introduced to the World Heritage Committee. This discussion marked the beginning of an ongoing effort to recognize the interaction of culture and nature in implementing the World Heritage Convention. The recognition of cultural landscapes as part of World Heritage in 1992 was an important milestone that contributed to re-shaping conservation practice. Changes in the concept of heritage over time have broadened recognition of tangible and intangible heritage, traditional management systems, dynamic processes in defining authenticity and multiple values. With regard to the evolution of conservation practice, one of the most significant changes over the last two decades is a growing recognition of the central role 70

ICOMOS, “Yatra aur Tammanah,” themes 1–4; McIntyre-Tamwoy, “Travelling,” 147–50. Mitchell et al., Proceedings. 72 ICCROM, “World Heritage Leadership.”. 71

170

N. J. Mitchell

of local communities and, in particular, Indigenous peoples. Community leadership and engagement make essential contributions to understanding and sustaining culture-nature interlinkages and to the resilience of World Heritage sites. There have been many changes to the Operational Guidelines to reflect this community-based approach and today community involvement is encouraged across the full breadth of the World Heritage system from nominations to ongoing conservation. This community role is often achieved through a variety of strategies for equitable governance and rights-based conservation. It is notable that an International Indigenous Peoples Forum on World Heritage was created by Indigenous delegates in 2017 and launched at the 2018 World Heritage Committee meeting. This forum serves as a platform for the involvement of Indigenous peoples in the identification, management and conservation of World Heritage sites.73 Collectively, these more inclusive and integrative developments are re-shaping the contours of a culture-nature approach for heritage practice. These shifts represent a departure from an “exclusive expert domain towards one building on local community perspectives and values that often defy narrow nature-culture distinctions.”74

10.6 Promising Directions for Advancing Conservation Practice One of the current challenges facing the World Heritage system and the larger field of conservation is how to sustain momentum since defining a culture-nature approach remains a work in progress. Mapping specific further development is challenging. Even so, there are a number of promising directions to advance more integrated approaches to conservation practice.75 Building Capacity for Change To advance more integrated culture-nature conservation practice requires ongoing investment of time and resources. Recent experience has demonstrated the effectiveness of collaboration between ICOMOS and IUCN and other international partners working with and learning from community-based initiatives. This collaborative leadership environment can support a more inclusive and interdisciplinary approach to conservation practice. Working together, they have improved processes for implementing the World Heritage Convention and played a lead role in designing Connecting Practice, convening the culture-nature journeys and sponsoring the leadership program. These initiatives have also created an international heritage conservation network among peers that continues to build capacity for leading change to heritage practice. Ideally, there

73

IIPFWH, “International.”. Larsen and Wijesuriya, “Nature-Culture,” 143. 75 McIntyre-Tamwoy and Badman, “The CultureNature Journey,” 75–80. 74

10 Journeys at the Intersection of Culture and Nature: Towards Integrated …

171

is potential that this collaborative leadership approach can be adapted to address additional conservation challenges such as sustainability and resiliency.76 Capitalizing on Interdisciplinary Biocultural Initiatives The ongoing efforts to learn from conservation practice are complemented by a vibrant research community exploring biocultural approaches to heritage conservation that offer new models and new language.77 This research proposes a promising way of conceptualizing places with culture-nature interconnections as dynamic interacting systems rather than as a nature-culture duality. In this literature, the systems are labeled by a variety of terms such as “complex, adaptive biocultural systems” or “social-ecological systems.”78 People have an integral role in these interconnected systems. As illustrated by Pimachiowin Aki, many places are shaped and sustained by people as an essential part of ongoing dynamic biocultural systems. Consequently, the conservation approach for these systems relies on equitable and effective governance and a community-led approach.79 Some authors argue that “biocultural approaches increase the adaptive capacity of conservation to cope with diverse, dynamic and complex problems” and “can guide progress toward just and sustainable conservation solutions.”80 The emphasis on just and sustainable conservation is a particularly important and relevant aspect of this work. This research also indicates that many important landscape systems are vulnerable to various types of disruption—notably climate change—so there is a sense of urgency to better understand the resiliency of these biocultural systems.81 Research is underway to identify the most effective ways to strengthen resilience of biocultural systems, an increasingly important research area relevant to conservation practice. While this topic cannot be covered in detail here, it is important to note that important progress is being made by an international network of academic institutions. New Partnerships for a More Integrated Culture-Nature Conservation Practice Introducing a more integrated culture-nature approach into other global frameworks represents another opportunity. This initiative can address critical current challenges, contribute localized case studies and broaden awareness of the benefits of more integrated conservation. Andrew Potts, coordinator for the ICOMOS working group on climate change and heritage, has argued that it is critical for heritage professionals to engage in these international programs since “addressing the planet’s looming crises requires better integrated nature-culture approaches…

76

Leitão and Badman, “Opportunities,” 87–8; ICOMOS and IUCN signed a Memorandum of Understanding in May 2020 to provide a framework for a joint CultureNature work program, see McIntyre-Tamwoy and Badman, “The CultureNature Journey,” 75–80. 77 Gavin et al., “Defining biocultural,” 140–4; Gavin et al., “Effective biodiversity,” 1850–3. 78 Van Oudenhoven et al., “Social-ecological,” 155; Gavin et al., “Defining biocultural,” 141. 79 Brown, “Bringing Together,” 34–9; Gavin et al., “Defining biocultural,” 140–4; Gavin et al., “Effective biodiversity,” 1846, 1850–3. 80 Gavin et al., “Effective biodiversity,” 1846, 1850. 81 Van Oudenhoven et al., “Social-ecological,” 162–6; Caillon et al., “Moving beyond,” 27–32.

172

N. J. Mitchell

[to advance] conservation outcomes, fostering biological and cultural diversity, and supporting the well-being of contemporary societies in both urban and rural areas.”82 Fortunately, some of the global frameworks, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), already require conservation strategies that incorporate governance, traditional knowledge, and the rights and responsibilities of Indigenous peoples and local communities.83 In 2018, the Secretariat of the CBD collaborated with UNESCO and other partners to hold a “Nature and Culture Summit” that concluded with a “Declaration on Nature and Culture.”84 This declaration created a multi-partner International Alliance on Nature and Culture that was launched in 2020 as a forum for natural and cultural heritage professionals and institutions to work together.

10.7 Closing Thoughts This journey over the last several decades has witnessed and contributed to a transformation in the concept of heritage and conservation strategies in response to an increasing recognition of the inextricable links between culture and nature–and the relationship between people and place. These changes are reflected in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention and in conservation more broadly. These emerging trends have many positive social benefits. In addition, they position heritage to play a broader role in society and to contribute to more sustainable, resilient and equitable conservation.85

Nora J. Mitchell Ph.D., adjunct associate professor at the University of Vermont in Historic Preservation, is an honorary member of the ICOMOS/IFLA International Scientific Committee on Cultural Landscapes and a member of IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas. Her current work focuses on culture-nature interlinkages. During her 32-year career with U.S. National Park Service, she was the founding director of two professional centers for landscape conservation, the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation and the Stewardship Institute.

82

Potts, “An Urgent Journey,” 229–30. Brown, “Bringing Together,” 41. 84 Convention on Biological Diversity, “The Sharm El-Sheikh,” 1–6; Convention on Biological Diversity, “COP 15 renews.”. 85 Araoz, “Preserving heritage places,” 55–9; Gavin et al., “Effective biodiversity,” 1846. 83

Chapter 11

Interdisciplinarity in Heritage Conservation: Intersections with Climate Change and Sustainability Ewan Hyslop

Abstract Heritage conservation has long benefitted from the inclusion of a wide range of disciplines, using this approach to inform and strengthen management decisions and ensure wider relevance of cultural heritage in all its forms to different communities. Better understanding of past cultural practices enhances sustainable behaviours and provides perspective on changes through time. These observations are directly relevant to addressing current challenges from climate change. The heritage sector is not immune from the urgent need to take climate action across a range of topics, including emissions reduction from buildings, assessment of impacts and adaptation, resource efficiency and adoption of increasingly sustainable practices in areas such as heritage tourism. Responsible stewardship requires an informed approach, ensuring continuity of key values while embracing change. Yet much can be learned from the past and the role of heritage in documenting human response to past environmental changes. Keywords Interdisciplinarity · Climate change · Sustainability · Stewardship · Emissions reduction · Adaptation

11.1 Introduction Interdisciplinarity in heritage conservation has long been regarded as important in practice, and in recent years has been a necessary component of decision-making and strategic planning. As the 2015 Montreal Round Table on interdisciplinarity and heritage conservation demonstrated, some elements of cultural heritage have long embraced interdisciplinarity, such as the use of anthropology in archaeology and material science in the conservation of objects and buildings. But the relatively recent emergence of climate change as a significant threat has brought increased recognition of the value of an interdisciplinary approach and the importance of having a wider evidence base to support conservation decision-making and long term planning. E. Hyslop (B) Historic Environment Scotland, Edinburgh, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Cameron (ed.), Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century, Creativity, Heritage and the City 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2_11

173

174

E. Hyslop

In practice, the management of cultural heritage is already interdisciplinary in nature and has been for some time. Those who work in the heritage conservation sector will interact almost daily with people from a range of disciplines—architecture, history, archaeology, engineering, science, planning, education—and engage with specialists from other fields such as social science, digital documentation, tourism and economics. Heritage is rarely divorced from its associated communities and peoples spanning different aspects of engagement and ownership across time and place. This diversity brings additional interactivity and complexity to management decisions. Thus, the practice of heritage conservation is almost by definition a hybrid of expertise and knowledge—rather than a pure discipline in itself. This is well illustrated by the wide range of backgrounds of students who are attracted to the numerous training and degree programs that are now available, and who are emerging as tomorrow’s heritage professionals. Heritage management draws on a range of specialist knowledge to inform day-today decision-making, and increasingly so to develop long-term direction and strategy. Many conservation practitioners today spend a considerable proportion of their time addressing a legacy of previous poor decisions that have resulted from, for example, short-term “quick fix” solutions or the use of inappropriate materials based on poor understanding of their properties (e.g. cement mortars, chemical consolidates) which have not proved successful over time. This remedial action has led to an appreciation of the value of more considered and evidence-based decision-making. It might be argued that some members of the heritage sector are viewed as inwardlooking and elitist. A strongly developed sense of protectionism and defensiveness is understandable, given the long and uneasy history of the conservation movement and the existence of many past, present and new threats. Those working in heritage tend to have a strong appreciation of its value—physical assets or cultural meaning—to society, commonly expressed through concepts such as sense of place and cultural identity. Yet most policy and budgetary decision-makers typically struggle with such concepts and tend to view heritage value largely in economic monitory terms through, for example, commercial value or tourism. While some elements of cultural heritage increasingly embrace interdisciplinarity, a much greater appreciation of the need for wider engagement is necessary if the sector is to become more effective in communicating wider values. In recent times, significant progress has been made in engaging with communities and recognizing the contribution of Indigenous cultures, thereby expanding the definition and boundaries of mainstream heritage to include elements such as cultural landscapes and intangible cultural heritage. The recognition of the value of past practices, including land management and cultural beliefs, has strengthened the appreciation of cultural heritage as a valued asset to wider society. This recognition is particularly pertinent in cases where physical cultural assets are poorly preserved and dislocated, or have not survived. This dimension is of increasing importance in the context of climate change. Retaining value at sites that are physically under threat or ensuring continuity of cultural meanings in displaced communities where physical or environmental loss has occurred reinforces the role of heritage. Deeper understanding of traditional cultural practices can often highlight environmentally

11 Interdisciplinarity in Heritage Conservation: Intersections with Climate …

175

sound and sustainable behaviours in aspects such as land management and agriculture, providing lessons for future practice and considerations of resource efficiency in a future low carbon society. Another consideration that places cultural heritage in a wider role is the concept of stewardship and the perspective of change through time. These attributes are core currency to many heritage practitioners who instinctively understand time and change in a way that many others do not. No heritage site has remained unaltered over its lifetime, and the appreciation and understanding of the ongoing balance between change and continuity underline the importance of heritage in providing a record of human activity through time and the connection of the past to current and future generations. Such awareness of past changes and their relevance to decisionmaking and ongoing stewardship are important to inform thinking in a new era of climate change adaptation, when all aspects of society will need to undergo change to ensure continuity and survival in the face of human-induced environmental change. For example, through national climate change adaptation plans, governments seek to enhance resilience across society over the coming decades. It is arguable that the perspective of heritage stewardship provides an understanding that change has always occurred and need not be detrimental. Climate change, although severe in many aspects, can be viewed as the next set of changes. The cultural heritage sector is empowered to respond to the challenges of the future by its ability to understand and build on the changes of the past.

11.2 Climate Change and Cultural Heritage The 2015 Paris Agreement signed by 194 countries under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) seeks to keep global temperature rise below 2 °C from pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C. The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its special report on global warming of 1.5 °C in which it states that we have already made the climate 1 °C warmer and that warming could reach 1.5 °C around 2024 and 2 °C by 2060 if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked.1 Many of the resultant climate impacts that are already being seen, such as increasing temperatures, extreme heat, intense precipitation, droughts and wildfires, will continue to increase in frequency and severity due to emissions that have already occurred and are effectively “lockedin.” The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) has reported a doubling of extreme weather events globally in the last twenty years. It is apparent that the consequences of previous and current emissions will persist for centuries to millennia.2 Compliance with the Paris Agreement requires net anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) to fall by about forty-five percent from 2010 levels by 2030, 1 2

IPCC, “Summary for Policymakers,” 6 (Fig. SPM 1). United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Human Cost of Disasters, 1–28.

176

E. Hyslop

reaching net zero emissions around 2050 (with any remaining emissions being balanced by decarbonization initiatives to remove CO2 from the air). Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will require rapid and far-reaching transitions in humankind’s patterns of living, production, consumption and the way we use land, energy, industry, buildings, transport and cities.3 It is acknowledged that such fundamental changes are currently not occurring on the required scale and urgency, and that in order to achieve progress, all aspects of society must contribute. Climate change is recognized as the fastest growing global threat to World Heritage properties, many of which (cultural, natural and mixed) are already being impacted. The United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said in 2019 that “climate change is a threat to our future, but also to our heritage, natural and cultural” and acknowledged that “extreme weather events and shifts in climate are taking a toll on ancient monuments and sites.”4 Two World Heritage Advisory Bodies also warn of the danger. For the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), “among the potential threats, climate change is assessed as by far the most serious.”5 For a number of sites, this threat is materializing, with tangible impacts on World Heritage values. For the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), “climate change has become one of the most significant and fastest growing threats to people and their heritage worldwide.”6 As far back as 2005, the World Heritage Committee called on States Parties to identify properties most at risk from climate change and encouraged UNESCO to “ensure that the results about climate change affecting World Heritage properties reach the public at large, in order to mobilize political support for activities against climate change and to safeguard in this way the livelihood of the poorest people of our planet.”7 In 2006 it asked all States Parties to implement a strategy to protect the Outstanding Universal Value, integrity and authenticity of World Heritage properties from the adverse effects of climate change. In 2007, the committee adopted a policy on the impacts of climate change on World Heritage properties.8 Since that time, climate change has become increasingly recognized as a threat to World Heritage sites, as evidenced by the State of Conservation (SOC) reports, although the available information may underestimate the proportion of sites that are being impacted by climate change.9 Looking ahead, it is likely that the heritage students of today— as tomorrow’s heritage professionals—may well spend most of their time by midcentury reacting to the challenges of climate change.

3

IPCC, “Summary for Policymakers,” 15–16. China Global Television Network, “Experts Raise Alarm.” 5 IUCN, IUCN World Heritage Outlook 2014, 23. 6 ICOMOS, “Mobilizing the Cultural Heritage Community.” 7 UNESCO, “World Heritage Committee, twenty-ninth session,” 29 COM 7B.a.11. 8 UNESCO, “Policy document on the impact of Climate Change.” 9 Markham et al., World Heritage and Tourism, 16. 4

11 Interdisciplinarity in Heritage Conservation: Intersections with Climate …

177

11.3 Mitigation To limit global warming to 1.5 °C, emissions need to be about half their current rate by 2030 and net emissions will on average need to be reduced to zero by mid-century. The sooner emissions peak before 2030, and the lower the level at which they do so, the more manageable the impact of climate change will be. The contribution that heritage makes to global emissions is not documented, but it is likely to be significant, particularly through areas such as emissions from buildings and from tourism and its associated travel. It is widely acknowledged that taking the necessary action on emissions reduction (mitigation) is likely to be challenging, and it is important to note that this challenge also applies to cultural heritage. Among the significant issues to address is the real or perceived tension between mitigation and conservation of heritage values. Carbon emissions from buildings are a significant global source of greenhouse gas. The building and construction sectors are responsible for over one-third of global energy consumption and nearly forty percent of total direct and indirect emissions. Of this, operational emissions (energy used to heat, cool and light buildings) account for twenty-eight percent, whilst the remaining eleven percent comes from embodied carbon emissions (or “upfront” carbon that is associated with materials and construction processes). In recent years energy-related emissions from buildings have risen, after flattening between 2013 and 2016, with 2019 the highest level ever recorded. Several factors have contributed to this rise, including growing energy demand for cooling and heating due to rising air-conditioner ownership and extreme weather events. It is estimated that at its current growth rates the energy demand for cooling is likely to triple by 2050.10 While newly constructed buildings are increasingly highly regulated and energy efficient, around eighty percent of the buildings that will exist in 2050 are already in existence today, so a major priority is the decarbonising of existing stock.

11.4 Heritage Buildings and Retrofit Heritage buildings defined as those constructed using traditional materials and techniques make up a considerable part of the global building stock (typically around twenty-five percent for Europe). Currently, about thirty-five percent of the European Union’s buildings are over fifty years old and almost seventy-five percent of the entire building stock is regarded as energy inefficient. Most older buildings are likely only to survive if they can be adapted for use in the future, meaning that energy retrofit approaches must be found that can increase comfort, lower energy use and minimize environmental impact while retaining historic and aesthetic values. Debate has evolved quickly in the last decade from a position of opposition by 10

Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, 2019 Global Status Report, 9–16.

178

E. Hyslop

heritage regulators to a much more constructive approach to seek “conservationcompatible” solutions. The ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on Energy and Sustainability, and the development of European Standard EN16883 Guidelines for improving the energy performance of historic buildings under the European Committee for Standardization’s work programme CEN/TC 346 on Conservation of Cultural Heritage are such examples of progress. The European Union has developed several programs, guidelines and directives on energy efficiency in buildings in order to harmonize instruments and criteria, such as the recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (2010) along with many collaborative research projects funded through European cooperation.11 Typically, many standard energy-saving measures and interventions are not compatible with either preserving the character of older buildings or the technical requirements associated with the materials and techniques used in their construction. Nevertheless, many studies have demonstrated that energy performance can be improved considerably if the right solutions for a specific building type are identified. In some cases, reduction of the energy demand by seventy-five percent and beyond should be possible while preserving the heritage value. Much recent research effort has been to characterize the specific requirements of particular older building types and to identify and assess appropriate and replicable procedures that maintain the heritage value of the buildings whilst making them energy efficient.12

11.5 Reuse of Existing Assets Embodied carbon has been largely overlooked in most emissions-reduction programmes, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has emphasised that keeping global temperature rise to 1.5 °C will require drastic cuts in all types of carbon emissions over the next decade.13 Reducing “upfront” carbon is therefore crucial to addressing the climate crisis, particularly as new construction is expected to double the world’s building stock by 2060. In 2009, the global CO2 emissions of the construction sector were 5.7 billion tons, contributing twenty-three percent of total global emissions produced by economic activities.14 As well as emissions from materials and manufacturing, the construction sector is a large source of resource consumption and waste. For example, in the United Kingdom, the construction sector is the biggest consumer of natural resources and contributes to over a third of the country’s total waste.

11

European Union, “Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings.” European Union, “Energy Topics.” 13 IPCC, “Summary for Policymakers,” 15–16. 14 Huang et al., “Carbon Emission,” 2, 7. 12

11 Interdisciplinarity in Heritage Conservation: Intersections with Climate …

179

With increasing focus on environmental sustainability and wider-scope15 greenhouse gas emissions, concepts of embodied energy and resource efficiency are becoming more prominent. Increasing attention to switching from economic models based on resource consumption is likely to lead to a greater focus on the sustainable reuse of existing assets, including the repurposing of existing buildings. Resource efficiency is a major issue. Making the most of what we already have through refurbishment, adaptation and retrofit will likely be a key consideration to achieving the net-zero emissions targets now being set by many countries. There is a significant opportunity for the heritage sector to become part of the solution through promoting existing expertise in the adaptive reuse of buildings and heritage assets in the context of avoiding emissions from the construction of new buildings. Furthermore, communication of sustainable past practices, such as utilization of natural building materials and local supply chains, as well as the inherent passive design features of traditional building systems (such as thermal massing, solar gain and natural ventilation) can provide valuable lessons to reduce the use of energy-intensive building systems. In addition, a focus on sustainable past practices could challenge the commonly perceived need for overly intensive renovation of existing buildings.

11.6 Tourism In recent decades, tourism has become one of the world’s largest and fastest growing industries, with international arrivals increasing by three hundred percent over the past twenty-five years. It contributes ten percent of global GDP and is a major source of employment and economic activity. Between 2009 and 2013, tourism’s annual global carbon footprint increased from 3.9 to 4.5 bn tonnes of CO2 equivalent, and it now accounts for eight percent of total global emissions.16 Tourism-related transport represents twenty-two percent of global transport and five percent of all man-made emissions. Transport-related CO2 emissions from tourism are predicted to increase from 1,597 million tonnes to 1,998 million tonnes between 2016 and 2030, representing a twenty-five percent rise. In addition, international and domestic arrivals are expected to increase from twenty billion (2026) to thirty-seven billion by 2030 (Table 11.1).17 In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, other impacts of tourism can have negative effects. Recent studies have identified overtourism as detrimentally affecting both tourist destinations and local communities, with calls for the tourist industry

15

International emissions accounting distinguishes between direct (Scope 1) emissions and indirect (Scope 2 and 3) emissions, the latter often representing by far the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. 16 Lenzen et al., “The Carbon Footprint,” 1. 17 UNWTO and International Transport Forum, Transport-related CO Emissions, 43. 2

180

E. Hyslop

Table 11.1 Global tourist arrival numbers in billions comparing 2005, 2016 and projected data for 2030. Ewan Hyslop, based on data from UNWTO and International Transport Forum, TransportRelated CO2 Emissions of the Tourism Sector: Modelling Results, 2019, 31, 46

to develop more strategic approaches including defining carrying capacities and acceptable visitation levels for specific attractions.18 Although transport-related CO2 emissions from tourism remain a major challenge, there have been calls for the industry to align within the international climate targets and manage its development by decoupling growth from emissions.19 Significant decarbonization opportunities exist for tourism providers to drive local sustainable actions, such as sourcing of local and low carbon materials including food, reducing waste and promoting energy and water efficiency. Such actions would enhance benefits to local communities, thus using tourism to better support social cohesion and inclusiveness as well as minimizing its environmental impact. Cultural destinations, if appropriately managed through sustainable tourism strategies, generate positive economic and social benefits for local communities, and contribute to a better understanding of different histories, cultures and environments. Additionally, heritage sites can act as indicators of climate impacts past and present. These places can help communicate the effects of environmental change over time and monitor the effects of new protective or adaptation strategies. As records of the past, many heritage sites document sustainable practices that have developed in

18 19

UNWTO, “Overtourism?” 5–10. Ibid., 5–10.

11 Interdisciplinarity in Heritage Conservation: Intersections with Climate …

181

harmony with the local environment and ecosystems, in many cases offering lessons through harnessing local knowledge and practices.

11.7 Climate Impacts, Adaptation and Preparedness Globally, rising temperatures are accelerating sea level rise, driving more intense and extreme weather events, worsening drought and wildfires, and causing more damaging coastal flooding and storm surges. Warming oceans are causing irreversible coral bleaching and changes in the range and populations of fish species that millions of people rely on for food and income. Current estimates of sea level rise are variable but typically range between 0.5 and 2.4 m higher by 2100 compared to 2000, depending on the amount of global emissions (Table 11.2). Levels will continue to rise well beyond 2100 (albeit at a rate directly related to future emissions). Considerable uncertainty exists around the stability of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland with catastrophic loss likely to be triggered at 1.5–2 °C global warming resulting in multi-meter rise in sea level. The consequent risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and economic growth have been described by IPCC.20 Historic buildings, sites and monuments are also vulnerable to climate change impacts in many ways. Some will suffer direct damage from extreme rainfall and wind events; others from drought and related risks of fire. While extreme weather can produce damage through catastrophic events, progressive changes over time will increase pressure and susceptibility to damage. For example, increased frequency and intensity of wetting and drying events can accelerate the processes of erosion to stone or earthen structures. Combinations of impacts such as warmer temperatures with increased rainfall can increase humidity levels over time and result in biological colonization, pest infestation, mould growth and rot (Fig. 11.1). Changes to the structural integrity of standing structures can occur from ground instability (for example, from drying out of clay-rich soils or loss of permafrost). Changing conditions of preservation for buried archaeological resources can lead to deterioration and loss. Flooding from rainwater events, changes in groundwater levels and coastal flooding can inundate sites, causing physical damage and structural instability to materials and structures as well as longer-term impacts through increasingly humid environments. Coastal erosion and storms are particularly damaging and destructive, associated with both progressive physical erosion and catastrophic loss (Fig. 11.2). Climate change is both a direct threat and a threat multiplier to heritage sites. As climate change increases in intensity, the vulnerability of sites to other risks will also increase, including impacts from other pressures such as weak site management, lack of resources or expertise, competition for natural resources, changing land use, invasive species, development pressures and tourism.

20

IPCC, “Summary for Policymakers,” 10.

182

E. Hyslop

Table 11.2 Historical and projected global average sea level rise, combining IPCC scenarios and rates based on Antarctic and Greenland ice loss (High and Extreme). The IPCC scenarios show the impact for different emissions pathways representing Low (RCP2.6), Intermediate (RCP4.5) and High (RCP8.5). Table by Ewan Hylsop (adapted from US Global Change Research Program, Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume Impacts, Risks and Adaptation in the United States, 2018, 85)

Fig. 11.1 Caerlaverock Castle in south Scotland, abandoned in the seventeenth century, showing increased biological colonization and water penetration to exposed masonry resulting from higher temperatures and rainfall levels occurring since the 1960s. Photograph by Ewan Hyslop

11 Interdisciplinarity in Heritage Conservation: Intersections with Climate …

183

Fig. 11.2 The 5000-year-old domestic settlement at Skara Brae, part of the Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage site, protected by a defensive sea wall and under increasing pressure from coastal erosion. The unprotected coastal edge in the foreground is retreating at c.40 cm per year, and increasing. Photograph by Ewan Hyslop

The 1972 World Heritage Convention states that protection of heritage should include scientific research and technical studies to counteract dangers that threaten cultural or natural heritage, and encourages States Parties to act accordingly. This role is relevant to climate change, since World Heritage sites can demonstrate and share their response with others. Acknowledging this responsibility, the General Assembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention adopted in 2015 a policy for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention. The policy acknowledges increasing risks from disasters and the impact of climate change, and calls on member states to recognize that World Heritage represents both an asset to be protected and a resource to strengthen the ability of communities and their properties to resist, absorb, and recover from the effects of a hazard.21 There is a clear need to improve the understanding of hazards and their impacts to heritage sites and to develop risk assessment methodologies that can quantify aspects such as severity of impact and likelihood of occurrence. In addition, there is a need to develop effective communication and strategic planning in order to be able to increase resilience where it is necessary. Many methodologies and practices used by cultural heritage conservation practitioners can already support response to slow onset events through ongoing monitoring and planned maintenance programs, and can provide deeper understanding of longer-term environmental change through documenting the response to changes in the past. In recent years, several studies have sought to raise awareness of climate change impacts to heritage through identification of specific risks to sites and to highlight 21

UNESCO, “Policy Document for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective.”

184

E. Hyslop

the necessity for urgent action.22 In order to identify risk, such studies document specific primary climate change hazards like changes to temperature, precipitation or seasonality, alongside issues of exposure and vulnerability. As awareness improves, discussions around response and adaptation are likely to move beyond current practices of preparedness to efforts that increase physical resilience. As the severity and magnitude of climate change become better understood, adaptation or enhancement of existing protection systems may no longer be sufficient, and the accepted strategy of “resistance” will lead to new thinking around “acceptance.” In this respect, the irreparable loss of sites must be considered as a formal option or strategy in some situations. Despite the potential difficulties of reconciling this approach with established practices of conservation, it will become necessary to accept loss. In that unfortunate circumstance, it will be important to develop proactive strategies and plans to lose heritage sites in ways that can maximize benefits, for example by providing opportunities for community engagement and learning, recording and excavation. Preparedness for climate change impacts to sites requires evidence-based decision-making that considers both the physical risk to assets as well as wider implications of a potential reduction in heritage values. For climate change risks, utilization of a wide range of environmental and climate data in combination with heritage management information will provide a systematic assessment. For example, Historic Environment Scotland has developed a risk assessment methodology for the approximately three hundred and fifty sites in its care. This approach integrates data from national environmental agencies, such as coastal, fluvial and pluvial flooding and ground instability/stability data. A Geographical Information System approach has generated “Hazard Maps” to indicate the likelihood of impact events (Fig. 11.3).23 These maps are combined with heritage management and site conservation information to determine the likely consequences or impacts, thus generating a risk score for each site. The risk assessment approach is repeatable and allows for modification or updating of the risk scores as a consequence of site management activity and adaptation actions. A new model is the Climate Vulnerability Index (CVI), a methodology for assessing the vulnerability of World Heritage sites to climate change.24 It takes a systematic approach to assign risk and quantify the consequences, applying a repeatable methodology that is designed for use by heritage practitioners at a site level. First tested on a natural heritage site in Australia, the CVI was then piloted on a cultural property in 2019 at the Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage site in Scotland.25 The process focuses on engagement through structured workshops with local practitioners and a wider group of stakeholders, integrating climate science information with the values and attributes of the particular site (expressed as Outstanding 22

ICOMOS Climate Change and Cultural Heritage Working Group, The Future of Our Pasts; Rockman et al., Cultural Resources Climate Change Strategy; Historic Environment Scotland. A Guide to Climate Change Impacts. 23 Historic Environment Scotland, A Climate Change Risk Assessment, 46–59. 24 Day, Heron and Markham, “Assessing the Climate Vulnerability;” “Climate Vulnerability Index.” 25 Day, Heron, Markham et al., Climate Risk Assessment for Heart of Neolithic Orkney.

11 Interdisciplinarity in Heritage Conservation: Intersections with Climate …

185

Fig. 11.3 Climate change risk analysis for Fort George, an eighteenth-century coastal fortress in northeast Scotland, showing “hazard maps” generated for groundwater flooding, coastal flooding, slope instability and coastal erosion. Photograph from Historic Environment Scotland

Universal Value for a World Heritage site). Based on a risk assessment approach to document the physical impact to sites, the CVI goes further by considering the wider impacts to communities and other stakeholders. It documents the social, economic and cultural dependences related to the sites and their capacity to cope with climate change.

11.8 Cultural Heritage and Climate Action The key elements to address climate change are mitigation, adaptation and sustainability. Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions is a fundamental action necessary to arrest future global warming and prevent increasing climate change beyond the level that is already inevitable and “locked-in” by previous and current emissions levels. Adaptation is required to address the impacts of climate change. It aims to strengthen

186

E. Hyslop

resilience and to increase the adaptive capacity to climate-induced impacts, as well as to prepare for damage and loss. In addition to physical actions, there is a need for awareness-raising and training, and for building human and institutional capacity to plan for and engage with climate change and enable an effective response. Sustainability is a core part of addressing climate change. Fundamental to sustainability are the economic and social implications of the reuse of resources and existing assets and the role of heritage in supporting this direction. Cultural heritage has much to offer in building awareness of the sustainability of traditional and historic ways of living, and in ensuring that actions taken to conserve and adapt heritage are themselves inherently sustainable. Many of the long-term perspectives embodied in cultural heritage practice and the concepts of ongoing stewardship and reuse are directly compatible with sustainable environmental responsibility. The launch in 2019 of the Climate Heritage Network (CHN) is a recognition that climate action is a cultural heritage issue and that, despite the many connections between climate change and heritage, there is an urgent need to mobilize the sector on climate change issues and to harness embedded knowledge and expertise. The network brings together arts, culture and heritage organisations committed to aiding their communities in tackling climate change and achieving the ambitions of the Paris Agreement. The CHN action plan sets out activities that include supporting climate action by local communities and Indigenous peoples, valuing traditional knowledge, using culture to promote climate-resilient sustainable development, mainstreaming culture and heritage into climate planning, making the case for reuse of buildings through avoided operational and embodied carbon, and communicating the connection between cultural heritage and climate action.26 Neither climate change impacts nor the ability to contribute to greenhouse gas reduction is evenly distributed across populations. It is widely acknowledged that while the poorest and most vulnerable peoples will disproportionately experience higher negative impacts of climate change, in many cases it is such communities that are among those least contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris Agreement recognizes this disparity by asking developing countries to continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, while calling upon developed countries to undertake absolute economy-wide reduction targets. The role of cultural heritage goes well beyond reacting to climate change through, for example, mitigation and decarbonization of buildings and practices, and the futureproofing of assets through risk preparedness and physical adaptation measures. The cultural heritage sector has an opportunity to examine its role in supporting society through harnessing its unique perspective on aspects such as human endurance through history and continuity through times of change. The IPCC cautions that “throughout history, people and societies have adjusted to and coped with climate, climate variability and extremes, with varying degrees of success.”27 Cultural heritage has the opportunity to provide an important resource by offering examples of change and adaptation, illustrating social resilience and demonstrating 26 27

Climate Heritage Network, “Madrid-to-Glasgow.” IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, 54.

11 Interdisciplinarity in Heritage Conservation: Intersections with Climate …

187

adaptive capacity in response to environmental change, in many cases by Indigenous peoples using traditional knowledge and sustainable practices. In her 2019 report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights captures this challenge well when she states that “the impact of climate change on cultural heritage is an urgent human rights question and must be understood and responded to as such, and that cultural heritage in all its forms represents a powerful resource for addressing the challenges caused by climate change.”28

Ewan Hyslop is Head of Research and Climate Change at Historic Environment Scotland, overseeing activity in climate change, heritage science, digital documentation and innovation, and cultural resources. Ewan was founding co-chair of the international Climate Heritage Network and is Honorary Professor in the Faculty of Natural Sciences at Stirling University. In 2019, he co-authored A Guide to Climate Change Impacts on Scotland’s Historic Environment.

28

United Nations General Assembly, Human Rights Council, “Report of the Special Rapporteur,” 14.

Chapter 12

From Conservation to Reconstruction: The Influence of World Heritage on Theory and Practice François LeBlanc

Abstract The reconstruction of historic monuments, such as Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris and heritage places damaged or destroyed by armed conflict and natural disasters, became a major issue at the start of the twenty-first century. The 2016 Montreal Round Table on reconstruction and World Heritage is an inescapable and highly topical subject of discussion. Heritage experts, subject specialists, student delegates and university professors from Canada, France, Israel, Japan, Nepal, the United Kingdom and the United States explored the consequences that the decisions of the World Heritage Committee have had on the theory and practice of cultural heritage conservation. Keywords Principles · Reconstruction · Heritage places · Historic monuments · World Heritage · Notre-Dame de Paris

12.1 Introduction The reconstruction of monuments and historic sites damaged or destroyed by armed conflict and natural disasters became a major issue at the start of the twenty-first century. On Monday April 15, 2019 at 6:50 p.m., a violent fire broke out in the attic of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris and ravaged a large part of the historic monument. The fire had not yet been completely extinguished when the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, exclaimed: "We will rebuild Notre-Dame Cathedral within five years.”1 The bells of all the cathedrals of France rang out two days later at 6:50 p.m., forty-eight hours after the fire, but attention was focused instead on the huge reconstruction site that President Macron had promised to complete within five years (Fig. 12.1).

1

Agence France-Presse, “Macron.”.

F. LeBlanc (B) Conservation Architect, Ottawa, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Cameron (ed.), Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century, Creativity, Heritage and the City 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2_12

189

190

F. LeBlanc

Fig. 12.1 Emmanuel Macron, Président de la République française on 16 April 2019. Photograph from The Guardian, 16 April 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2019/apr/16/emm anuel-macron-we-will-rebuild-notre-dame-within-five-years-video

As soon as the news broke, many international leaders sent messages to France, from Russia’s Vladimir Putin to China’s Xi Jinping, as well as America’s Donald Trump and the United Kingdom’s Queen Elizabeth II. “It is not Our Lady of the Catholics, it is Our Lady of France, it is Our Lady of the entire world: the church is burning and the whole world starts crying,” said the vicar general of the diocese of Paris, Philippe Marsset.2 The Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris is part of a larger cultural property inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List as “Paris, Banks of the Seine.” The cathedral will be reconstructed, but how? By whom? According to what principles? Will it retain its integrity and authenticity? These are some of the questions confronting experts in the conservation and presentation of architectural heritage, ranging from UNESCO to local, national and international communities. The theme of the eleventh Round Table of the Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, From Conservation to Reconstruction: how World Heritage is Changing Theory and Practice, is an inescapable and highly topical subject of discussion. Heritage experts, subject specialists, student delegates and university professors from Canada, France, Israel, Japan, Nepal, the United Kingdom and the United States explored the consequences that the decisions of the World Heritage Committee have had on the theory and practice of cultural heritage conservation. The program was structured to present a broad overview of the subject followed by specific sessions on conservation theories, regional approaches, changing attitudes, alternative approaches, as well as a case study focused on the reconstruction of the 2

Reuters, “Emmanuel Macron.”.

12 From Conservation to Reconstruction: The Influence of World Heritage …

191

Fig. 12.2 Organizers and participants at the eleventh Montreal Round Table in March 2016. Photograph from Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage, Mardjane Amin

mausoleums at Timbuktu, Mali. Participants raised the possibility of using new tools from other disciplines, expressed an interest in the social dimension of the reconstruction debate, and supported measures that would help communities reach their full potential (Fig. 12.2).

12.2 Reconstruction: A Contemporary Definition Two years after the Montreal meeting, the government of Poland and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre held an international conference in Warsaw on the challenges of World Heritage recovery. During the meeting, the participants in Warsaw adopted the following definition of reconstruction: “The term ‘reconstruction,’ in a World Heritage context, is understood as a technical process for the restitution of destroyed or severely damaged physical assets and infrastructure following an armed conflict or a disaster. It is important to stress, in this regard, that such reconstruction of physical assets must give due consideration to their associated intangible practices, beliefs and traditional knowledge which are essential for sustaining cultural values among local communities.”3 With its emphasis on intangible dimensions, the Warsaw definition contrasts with the theoretical position of the twentieth century. Conservation professionals, represented in particular by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) and the International Center for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of

3

“Warsaw Recommendation,” 330.

192

F. LeBlanc

Fig. 12.3 A photo published by the Islamic State shows the destruction of the Baalshamin Temple, over 2,000 years old, located in the ancient city of Palmyra, Syria. Photograph from The Washington Post, 26 August 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-temple-and-a-civilization-fall/ 2015/08/26/793133be-4b5e-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html

Cultural Property (ICCROM), have long advised against the reconstruction of monuments and historic sites. This position is clearly expressed in the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964), officially adopted by ICOMOS in 1965: “All reconstruction work should however be ruled out ‘a priori’. Only anastylosis, that is to say, the reassembling of existing but dismembered parts can be permitted. The material used for integration should always be recognizable and its use should be the least that will ensure the conservation of a monument and the reinstatement of its form.”4 At the beginning of the Montreal Round Table, Christina Cameron explained why the theme had been selected: The choice of subject … stems from recent decisions of the World Heritage Committee in response to the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage in areas of conflict. In contrast to earlier guidance that aimed to discourage reconstruction of historic places, recent World Heritage Committee directives have shifted ground to strongly support reconstruction of historic places that have been obliterated. The motivation for this change in position is the Committee’s desire to recover lost identities and to take a stance against acts of aggression. While the 2001 destruction of the towering Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan gave a hint of what was to come, a paradigm shift in targeting the world’s iconic cultural heritage sites began in 2012. Prominent examples include the destruction of sixteen tombs in Timbuktu, Mali, and damage to several World Heritage sites in Syria, including the ancient classical city of Palmyra and the Grand Mosque in Aleppo (Fig. 12.3).5 4 5

ICOMOS, “International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments,” art. 15. Cameron and Wilson, From Conservation to Reconstruction, 11.

12 From Conservation to Reconstruction: The Influence of World Heritage …

193

In the context of this shift in thinking about reconstruction, what guidelines should be given to States Parties to the World Heritage Convention? What position should custodians of the principles of conservation take? The answer to these questions is complex and still subject to international reflection. Participants at the Montreal meeting explored the current interest in reconstruction as a tool to regain the meaning and importance of historic places partially or completely destroyed following natural disasters or conflicts. They sought to understand the consequences of the decisions of the World Heritage Committee on conservation theory and practice.

12.3 Reconstruction Theory and Philosophy The opening session featured a public keynote address by Mechtild Rössler, Director of UNESCO’s Heritage Division and the World Heritage Centre. She discussed the threats to World Heritage by terrorists and UNESCO’s response, stating that the destruction had reached an unprecedented magnitude and nature. In her opinion, this new scale that she characterized as “cultural cleansing” presented challenges to governments and the international community to adopt and apply innovative policies and approaches. The reconstruction of historic places as a means of restoring monuments from an earlier era is a phenomenon that only appeared in Western cultures of the nineteenth century. It made a marked appearance in North America where historical replicas served as living history museums that were popular with visitors and effective in presenting and interpreting the past. Heritage conservation professionals have consistently opposed reconstruction, starting in the nineteenth century and particularly following the declaration of Adolphe Napoléon Didron who proposed in 1845 the following axiom: “In the case of ancient monuments, it is better to consolidate than to repair, better to repair than to restore, better to restore than to reconstruct.”6 Also influential was the assertion in 1849 by art historian John Ruskin that “It is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture.”7 The 1964 Venice Charter is rooted in these nineteenth-century principles, adopting an attitude of great reserve with regard to reconstruction. This reservation is still evident in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention as well as the Riga Charter developed in 2000 by ICCROM in collaboration with the Latvian National Commission for UNESCO and the Latvian government.8 At the Montreal Round Table, Susan Denyer, Secretary of ICOMOS-UK and World Heritage advisor, said that simple rules cannot be applied to the complex

6

Didron, “Réparation,” 125. Ruskin, The Seven Lamps, 203–4. 8 ICOMOS, “International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments;” UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 2021,” par. 86; ICCROM/Latvian National Commission, “Riga Charter.”. 7

194

F. LeBlanc

situations we now face, and that the ad hoc decision-making by the World Heritage Committee seems to be leading to new approaches.9 When a site is inscribed on the World Heritage List, the World Heritage Committee clearly identifies the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property. When a site is partially or totally destroyed, the following questions arise. What remains of these values? Which values will be maintained or even resurrected and which ones will be forgotten? Who will decide this? Will new values be added to the property? How are we to understand the principle of authenticity in this context? Michael Turner, professor emeritus at the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem, opened the workshop with a paper about memory and its role in selective storytelling entitled “Past and Present: the Dilemma of Reconstructing Historic Places.” He structured his remarks around three pairs of contrasting concepts: remembrance and forgetfulness; celebration and mourning; and retribution and forgiveness. He suggested that memory (manifested by reconstruction) may be unfair for the present but that forgetfulness (demonstrated by new architecture) may be unjust to the past. In his conclusion, he challenged existing conservation doctrine, arguing that conservation charters must integrate both memory and new ideas.10 The lack of documentation and research on traditional buildings that have survived for centuries and the lack of understanding of their structural behaviour pose major challenges for reconstruction projects, especially after a natural disaster. One has to approach each monument according to its own characteristics and to understand the traditional knowledge underlying its original construction and subsequent additions. To succeed in identical reconstruction projects, the proponent must choose a solution adapted to the particular historic monument, find materials similar to or compatible with the original ones, and craftspeople trained in traditional techniques. In addition, one must carry out historical research on the materials, techniques and architecture of the concerned property and ensure quality control of the work with the chosen contractor who is usually the lowest bidder. In most cases, there is also a shortage of scientific analysis regarding the nature and behaviour of building materials. Sujan Shreshta, a structural engineer from Kathmandu, Nepal, explained to participants that meeting these requirements is an extraordinary challenge, especially in developing countries. He described his investigation into structural failures at the World Heritage site of Kathmandu (Nepal) following the violent earthquake of 7.8 magnitude on the Richter scale in 2015.11

12.4 Practice and the Options for Reconstruction In exceptional circumstances, conservation doctrine supports the consideration of an identical reconstruction. Following armed conflict or natural disaster, reconstruction 9

Cameron and Wilson, From Conservation to Reconstruction, 203–4. Turner, “Past and Present,” 39–51. 11 Shreshta, “Challenges of Reconstructing,” 161–7. 10

12 From Conservation to Reconstruction: The Influence of World Heritage …

195

could be considered when appropriate conditions exist, including the availability of thorough documentation, professionals and craftspeople trained in traditional techniques, and a local community committed to recreating the intangible values associated with a property or a historic place. In such circumstances, the custodians of the principles of conservation as well as the UNESCO World Heritage Committee have sometimes supported reconstruction as a valid option. Examples include Warsaw (Poland), the Timbuktu mausoleums (Mali) and the Mostar Bridge (Bosnia and Herzegovina), all properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and largely reconstructed. But this is not the only available option. One can reconstruct and express the values associated with a property or site with the help of ghost structures or other symbolic forms, using contemporary materials or new technologies such as augmented reality, virtual models or holographic renditions. Benjamin Franklin’s home in Philadelphia (United States of America) and the blast furnace at the Saint-Maurice Ironworks in Trois-Rivières (Canada) were presented as examples during the Round Table (Fig. 12.4). Nobuko Inaba, chair at that time of the graduate program in World Heritage at Tsukuba University in Tokyo, brought to the discussion her direct experience with conservation approaches being considered for the Bamiyan Buddhas (Afghanistan) destroyed by the Taliban in 2001. The current proposal for reconstruction presented technical challenges that would require making choices about the period in which the Buddhas should be reconstructed and the possible reintroduction of previously applied colours. To date, much debate has focused on the selection of an intervention

Fig. 12.4 An example of symbolic volumetric reconstruction is the blast furnace at les Forges du Saint-Maurice, Québec, Canada. Photograph by François LeBlanc

196

F. LeBlanc

Fig. 12.5 Empty niche in the cliff of the Bamiyan valley in Afghanistan where a monumental sixth-century statue of Buddha stood until it was destroyed by the Taliban in 2001. Photograph by Nobuko Inaba

method. Options range from anastylosis, new carved statues in the cliff, reinforced concrete sculpture to virtual reality.12 (Fig. 12.5). Round Table participants exchanged ideas on options that could go beyond reconstruction in places that have been deliberately destroyed, like the World Trade Center in New York City. In the context of sites of memory and contested places, such as those relating to the American Civil War, the possibility of dialogue on the legacy of the Civil War was explored as a creative response to the question. Everyone agreed that in these circumstances the story is more important than the built heritage. Nora Mitchell, adjunct professor at the University of Vermont, introduced the idea of seeking inspirations from landscape management as a model for reconstruction. Recognizing that landscapes are regularly confronted with rupture and change, she contrasted designed landscapes with evolving cultural landscapes. In the spirit of the Venice Charter, the 1982 Florence Charter on historic gardens discourages the reconstruction of designed landscapes, such as the gardens created by André Le Nôtre at the Palace of Versailles (France). When one decides to reconstruct a designed landscape, the Florence Charter requires that the work be carried out “on the basis of the traces that survive or of unimpeachable documentary evidence."13 With regard to evolving cultural landscapes, the answers to the ruptures must be sought from local communities who interact regularly with the landscapes. According to Mitchell, a

12 13

Cameron and Wilson, From Conservation to Reconstruction, 193. ICOMOS, “Historic Gardens,” art. 15.

12 From Conservation to Reconstruction: The Influence of World Heritage …

197

key factor is the resilience of communities when they develop creative responses to disruptive situations.14 It is quite possible that the next generations will only discover World Heritage sites through documentation, as they will have physically disappeared. Elizabeth Lee, vice president of CyArk in Oakland, California, raised another option. She referred to the Anqa emergency digital recording project in Syria and Iraq to highlight the urgency of documenting vulnerable historic places using three-dimensional digital scanning techniques to record at least the physical aspect of these exceptional places.15

12.5 Students’ Perspective on the Theory and Practice of Reconstruction The Round Table gave six students an opportunity to express their views on the theory and practice of reconstructing historic sites. They were asked to consider the issue, using the example of the tombs at the World Heritage site of Timbuktu (Mali). In 2012, the Director General of UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee appealed to violent extremists to spare the revered Sufi mausoleums. In response, they attacked the monuments with a renewed spirit of revenge. When the violence subsided, fourteen tombs were destroyed and others were damaged. UNESCO subsequently spearheaded a reconstruction program that was completed in 2015. After examining various documents on the destruction and reconstruction of the tombs, the students addressed the following questions: “What were the values ascribed to the tombs before their destruction and by whom? How were these values conserved, or not, in the reconstruction process? What would you have done and why?”.16 The students proposed several creative solutions. Alex Federman, a Master’s student in engineering at Carleton University in Ottawa, stated that the tombs represented religious and scientific values, arguing that both had been conserved. As evidence, he pointed to the fact that religious ceremonies continue on the site and traditional building techniques have been passed down to a new generation of builders. He supported the decision to reconstruct the tombs because this project brought together the local community as well as the international one. Melissa Mars, a Masters student of the Conservation of the Built Environment program at the University of Montreal, believed that the most important values were intangible, which she defined as local craftsmanship and the use of the sites as ritual spaces. She underlined the difficulties encountered in reconstructing the tombs in the absence of local know-how, wondering if the intangible values would persist in the future. Alberto Sanchez, a Master’s student in Columbia University’s Historic Preservation Program in New York City, noted that the values attributed to the tombs at the 14

Mitchell, “Reconstruction,” 149–56. Lee, “Scanning,” 146–7. 16 Cameron and Wilson, From Conservation to Reconstruction, 168–83. 15

198

F. LeBlanc

time of inscription, recorded in the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, relate to Timbuktu’s past. When listed, there was no mention of community values nor architectural techniques in the original statement. It was only after the mausoleums were destroyed that community and intangible values were brought up. Sanchez observed that the rapid reconstruction of the mausoleums contradicted the argument of the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in The Hague that the tombs were irreplaceable. Hallie Church, a student at the Willowbank School for Restoration Arts in Queenston, believed that the values were both tangible and intangible. She considered that they were conserved thanks to local knowledge of construction methods and the link established with the reconstructed structures as places of prayer. For her, the tombs are places of empowerment and rebirth. She questioned the decision to reconstruct the tombs and the lack of transparency in decision making, considering that it would have been useful to understand how the choices were made, what options were considered, what values remain and what new values have been created. Lisa Hirata, a Master’s student in the World Heritage program at the Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences at Tsukuba University, said that at first she believed the values belonged to the local community before she realized that there are different communities, including global communities. She wondered if the local values had been conserved, but is convinced that the new values of memory and solidarity towards terrorism have been. She believes that the local community should decide what to remember and what to forget. In her view, some destroyed tombs should remain in place, just like the buildings partially destroyed by the first atomic bomb in Hiroshima, so that people have a place to reflect on the past. Marie-Christine Blais, a Masters student in the Heritage Conservation program at the School of Canadian Studies at Carleton University, spoke about the different values that exist, based on the local point of view and the perspective of World Heritage. The mobilization of the local community for the reconstruction of the mausoleums was part of the reconciliation process. She supports this approach and this commitment. Participants praised the students for their clear positions and for the wide range of views. They noted that values have changing objectives, as the students demonstrated. Many supported the idea of taking time for reflection, following a disaster like the destruction of mausoleums at Timbuktu, to make room for new considerations over time and generations. A prolonged discussion focused on UNESCO’s decision making process, which one participant called "murky." There were concerns that professional and government bodies might have made such decisions without consulting the local community. Several participants emphasized the importance of documenting the decision making process so that future generations can understand when, why and by whom such decisions were made.

12 From Conservation to Reconstruction: The Influence of World Heritage …

199

12.6 The Big Question that Remains Unanswered When a cultural site inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List is partially or totally destroyed, should the World Heritage Committee and its advisors, ICOMOS and ICCROM accept that it be rebuilt? If so, under what circumstances and under what conditions? In light of the evolution of conservation principles, as demonstrated in the Venice Charter (1964), the Burra Charter (1979), the Nara Document (1994), the Riga Charter (2000) and the UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape (2011),17 what should be the position of the keepers of conservation principles with regard to reconstruction? In any reconstruction project, remembering and forgetting, celebrating and mourning, punishing and forgiving are three pairs of opposites that motivate decisions about reconstruction options. Considering that memory can be unjust for the present but that forgetfulness can be unjust for the past, should conservation charters try to integrate both memory and new ideas? Do recent ICOMOS positions on the reconstruction of World Heritage properties constitute philosophical dilemmas or do they show an evolution of theory? In the case of reconstruction projects, is not the story more important than the building? There is a close relationship between tangible and intangible dimensions of historic sites. Without physical infrastructure at historic places—including reconstructed buildings—the number of visitors and revenues decline. Pressure from the tourism industry, communities and politicians who insist that historic sites have tangible infrastructure, provides justification for reconstructions. How to deal with these legitimate concerns? As the Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape illustrates, the international community recognizes that the traditional concept of urban heritage, focused mainly on the physical, architectural and urban aspects, is insufficient to implement adequate conservation strategies. We must now imagine new approaches that integrate the social, cultural and intangible dimensions to achieve sustainable development. The 1994 Nara Document on Authenticity was a key factor in the paradigm shift. The greater use of intangible attributes has strengthened the option for reconstruction. This change raises the thorny question of whether the concept of authenticity applies to intangible cultural heritage and if so, how to assess authenticity? The increased use of technology provides an opportunity to create augmented or virtual reality to reconstruct stories from the past. Should we give priority to these approaches? To succeed in reconstruction projects, it is necessary to choose a solution adapted to each property, find traditional materials and qualified craftspeople, carry out indepth documentary research and ensure quality control of the work of specialized professionals. Is it realistic to require such conditions, particularly from economically disadvantaged states? 17

ICOMOS, “International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments;” Australia ICOMOS, “The Burra Charter;” ICOMOS, “Nara;” ICCROM/Latvian National Commission, “Riga Charter;” UNESCO, “Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.”.

200

F. LeBlanc

UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee inscribes properties on the World Heritage List based on their values. In the case of the Timbuktu mausoleums in Mali, the declaration of the Outstanding Universal Value of this property mainly focused on the tombs as witnesses to the Timbuktu past, without mentioning community values or traditional construction techniques. These values emerged after the destruction. Shifting values present a challenge for conservation specialists. How to maintain or recover the values of a property that has been destroyed? How to associate or introduce new values that were not part of the initial declaration? Who determines the values of a reconstruction?

12.7 Reconstructions from the Past Many examples illustrate early reconstruction practices. For example, French architect Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc made additions to historic places in the 1860s to evoke the medieval past, as shown by the fortified city of Carcassonne and NotreDame Cathedral in Paris. In 1875 Governor General Lord Dufferin asked his Irish architect William Lynn to insert fake picturesque medieval gates into the fortifications of the historic city of Quebec. In the 1920s, nostalgia for the past led to the replica of an eighteenth-century American colonial settlement at Colonial Williamsburg, flagship of historical reconstruction in North America. One should also remember that UNESCO’s first international campaign to save the Abu Simbel temples in Egypt in the 1960s required the dismantling and reconstruction of the monuments. In this same period, Canada had its share of major reconstruction projects. For example, the federal government transformed an enormous archaeological site into the reconstructed fortress of Louisburg in Nova Scotia (Fig. 12.6). The government of Quebec rebuilt a large part of Quebec’s first town square at Place Royale. In the same era, the St. Lawrence Parks Commission created an imaginary historic settlement known as Upper Canada Village near Morrisburg, Ontario, composed of old buildings relocated during the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1958. Since then, other Canadian properties have built reconstructions at historic places. At the World Heritage site of l’Anse-aux-Meadows (Newfoundland and Labrador), an archaeological field that bears evidence of the arrival of the Norse in North America a thousand years ago, sod houses were erected within the site to demonstrate construction methods used by the Vikings. There are many other examples in Canada: King’s Landing in New Brunswick, Fort Anne in Annapolis, the Anglican Church of St. John in Lunenburg and the Church of St. George in Halifax, the Saint-Maurice Ironworks and the Quebec drill hall, Fort George in Niagara and Fort Langley near Victoria.

12 From Conservation to Reconstruction: The Influence of World Heritage …

201

Fig. 12.6 An example of identical reconstruction is the Fortress of Louisbourg, Nova Scotia, Canada. Photograph from Wikimedia Commons, Martin St-Amant

12.8 Where Are We Since the 2016 Round Table? Solutions to the reconstruction dilemma remain elusive. The search continues for approaches that will satisfy both the guardians of authenticity and integrity of historic places and the international community that has the responsibility to identify and safeguard the natural, cultural and intangible heritage of humanity (Table 12.1). In 2017, ICOMOS collaborated with Kyushu University, in Fukuoka, Japan to organize a symposium on the theme of authenticity and reconstruction. One of the results of this meeting is a framework for reconstruction of cultural property published as ICOMOS Guidance on Post trauma Recovery and Reconstruction for World Heritage Cultural Properties.18 The next year, an international conference on the challenges of World Heritage recovery was held in Warsaw.19 At the invitation of the government of Poland and the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, two hundred participants from more than thirty countries gathered to discuss reconstruction in the context of the World Heritage Convention. The objective of the meeting was to summarize previous discussions and experiences regarding the recovery and reconstruction of World Heritage sites, and to attempt to develop the most appropriate universal guidelines to move forward for places of exceptional value at the time of destruction, especially for historic urban areas. The key outcomes of the meeting consist of challenges to the various stakeholders of the World Heritage system: To the World Heritage Committee 18 19

ICOMOS, ICOMOS Guidance on Post Trauma. Marcinkowska and Zalasinska, The Challenges.

ICOMOS Australia: the Burra Charter The different versions of the Burra Charter of ICOMOS Australia oppose the complete reconstruction of a historic monument. The first iteration in 1979 indicates that reconstruction should be “limited to the completion of a depleted entity and should not constitute the majority of the fabric of a place” and must be based on “physical and/or documentary evidence” (Australia ICOMOS, “The Australia ICOMOS Guidelines,” art. 18–19.)

UNESCO: World Heritage Operational Guidelines The many versions of the guidelines to implement the World Heritage Convention discourage the listing of reconstructions. The first statement appears in the 1980 version, namely that “reconstruction is only acceptable if it is carried out on the basis of complete and detailed documentation on the original and to no extent on conjecture” (UNESCO, “Operational Guidelines 1980,” art. 18.)

UNESCO: the case of Warsaw During the 1944 Warsaw uprising in Poland, more than 85% of the historic center of the city was destroyed. After the war, its inhabitants undertook a five-year reconstruction campaign, resulting in a meticulous restoration of the churches, palaces and market square of the old town. After much hesitation, ICOMOS recommended to the World Heritage Committee to inscribe Warsaw on the World Heritage List under criterion (vi) “as a symbol of the exceptionally successful and identical reconstruction of a cultural property which is associated with events of considerable historical significance.” The Committee accepts the recommendation but declares that there could be no question of inscribing other reconstructed cultural properties in the future. The World Heritage Committee amends its Operational Guidelines so that criterion (vi) can only be used in exceptional circumstances or in conjunction with other criteria (Cameron, “From Warsaw to Mostar,” 19–24.)

1979

1980

1980

(continued)

ICOMOS: the Venice Charter The text of the International Charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites states that all reconstruction work should be ruled out a priori and that only anastylosis can be envisaged, that is to say the reassembling of existing but dismembered parts (ICOMOS, “International Charter,” art. 15)

1964

ca.1850 Viollet-le-Duc, Ruskin and Didron The French architect Viollet-le-Duc carries out “restorations/reconstructions.” John Ruskin, English critic of the Victorian period, affirms that it is as impossible to raise the dead as to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture. French historian and archaeologist Adolphe Napoléon Didron declares that it is better to consolidate than to repair, better to repair than to restore, better to restore than to reconstruct, and that in no case should anything be added, especially nothing removed (Didron, “Réparation,” 125.)

Table 12.1 Chronological table of instruments and events associated with reconstruction. Table compiled from bibliographic sources by François LeBlanc

202 F. LeBlanc

ICCROM-Latvia: the Riga Charter A regional conference led by ICCROM produced the Riga Charter on authenticity and historical reconstruction in relationship to cultural heritage. The charter states that “in exceptional circumstances, reconstruction of cultural heritage, lost through disaster, whether of natural or human origin, may be acceptable, when the monument concerned has outstanding artistic, symbolic or environmental (whether urban or rural) significance for regional history and cultures” subject to conditions related to documentation and other measures (ICCROM/Latvian National Commission, “Riga Charter,” art. 6.)

UNESCO: the case of Bamiyan The destruction of the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan foreshadows for UNESCO and World Heritage more deliberate destruction of cultural heritage

UNESCO: the case of Mostar Built in 1557 by Sultan Suleiman, the Magnificent, the Mostar Bridge was the nerve center of the historic city. Key to the city’s identity, it was both a civil and a sacred structure. Destroyed during a military assault of 1993 in an attempt to eradicate the history of a country and its people, the bridge was reconstructed through an international UNESCO campaign (1999–2004) and then inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2005 after heated discussions on its authenticity (Cameron, “From Warsaw to Mostar,” 19–24.)

UNESCO: Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape In this document, the historic urban context includes the natural characteristics, the built environment, both historical and contemporary, the organization of space and urban morphology, perceptions and visual relationships, but also social and cultural practices and values, contemporary artistic expressions, economic processes and intangible heritage values as related to diversity and identity. The adoption of this recommendation constitutes a form of recognition that the traditional conception of urban heritage, mainly focused on the physical, architectural and urban aspects, is obsolete (UNESCO, “Recommendation of the Historic Urban Landscape,” art. 8–9.)

UNESCO: destruction in Mali and Syria This year marks a radical escalation in the deliberate destruction of emblematic places of cultural heritage. Among the targeted properties are the mausoleums in Timbuktu in Mali, and several World Heritage sites in Syria, including the ancient city of Palmyra and the Great Mosque of Aleppo

2000

2001

2005

2011

2012

(continued)

Japan: the Nara Document on authenticity In the context of the debate on authenticity that inevitably follows any attempt at reconstruction, the Nara Document on authenticity provides an element of response, focusing on the relative and contextual authenticity of each site. “Depending on the nature of the cultural heritage, its cultural context, and its evolution through time, authenticity judgements may be linked to the worth of a great variety of sources of information. Aspects of the sources may include form and design, materials and substance, use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and feeling, and other internal and external factors. The use of these sources permits elaboration of the specific artistic, historic, social, and scientific dimensions of the cultural heritage being examined” (ICOMOS, “Nara Document,” art. 13.)

1994

Table 12.1 (continued)

12 From Conservation to Reconstruction: The Influence of World Heritage … 203

UNESCO and UN: Resolution 2100 The UN Security Council adopts Resolution 2100 creating a peace mission to Mali (MINUSMA) with, for the first time in history, a mandate to protect cultural sites from attacks, in collaboration with UNESCO. United Nations Security Council. “Resolution 2100”.)

ICOMOS: Colloquium on reconstruction ICOMOS organizes a preliminary international colloquium in Paris on post-trauma reconstruction

Canada: Montreal Round Table on reconstruction The Canada Research Chair on Built Heritage at the University of Montreal organises an international workshop on the theme From conservation to reconstruction: How World Heritage is Changing Theory and Practice (Cameron and Wilson, From Conservation to Reconstruction.)

ICOMOS: International meeting on reconstruction ICOMOS holds an international expert workshop in Paris to discuss approaches to reconstructing damaged or destroyed World Heritage sites. (ICOMOS, ICOMOS Guidance.)

ICOMOS: University Forum Workshop on authenticity and reconstruction ICOMOS, in collaboration with Kyushu University, Japan, organizes a meeting and proposes a framework for action for reconstructed cultural properties

UNESCO and ICOMOS Poland: International conference on reconstruction The ICOMOS National Committee in Poland and the World Heritage Centre hold an international symposium in Warsaw with more than 200 delegates on the theme "The challenges of World Heritage recovery.” The participants formulate recommendations for the World Heritage Committee, States Parties to the Convention, Advisory bodies and international organizations. (Marcinkowska and Zalasinska, The Challenges, 327–35.)

UNESCO: World Heritage magazine UNESCO publishes a special issue on the theme of reconstruction and recovery. (Rossler, “Editorial,” 5

France: the case of Cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris On July 9, 2020, French President Emmanuel Macron approves plans to rebuild the cathedral in a historically accurate manner

ICOMOS-ICCROM: case studies ICOMOS and ICCROM publish an analysis of case studies in recovery and reconstruction in two volumes (ICOMOS-ICCROM, “Analysis of Case Studies.”

2013

2016

2016

2016

2017

2018

2018

2020

2020

Table 12.1 (continued)

204 F. LeBlanc

12 From Conservation to Reconstruction: The Influence of World Heritage …

205

Develop guidance for reconstruction and recovery at World Heritage sites, including Resource Manuals, further development of case studies and best practice examples, taking into account the principles listed above. To the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention Use the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) and integrated management approaches to achieve a holistic approach to reconstruction for post disaster recovery. To the Advisory Bodies Consider the clarification of conservation doctrine as it applies to reconstruction by reviewing the substantial body of charters, declarations and recommendations, further development of case studies as well as by providing specific advice to States Parties, as necessary. To UNESCO, the World Bank, and other UN and International Bodies Reaffirm that cultural and natural heritage, including World Heritage, is an essential and integral part of recovery and the growth of sustainable communities towards achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and ensure accordingly the necessary international coordination mechanisms.20

UNESCO also published a special issue of World Heritage on reconstruction and recovery. In her opening editorial, Mechtild Rössler wrote that “while conflicts continue to inflict damage—much of it intentional—on heritage sites, reconstruction becomes a critical topic for discussion.”21 In an interview for the same issue, Christina Cameron shared her opinion about different aspects of reconstruction, concluding with the following statement: I would suggest that before the Committee firms up its position on the reconstruction of places intentionally destroyed through conflict, it would be wise to step back and reflect on the policy implications of its actions. While we now have the technical and digital capacity to make replicas of historic places, issues of ethics and doctrine remain unresolved. As part of that reflection, alternatives to reconstruction should be explored to determine whether or not they could meet the needs of the communities that now see reconstruction as their only option. There are many alternative approaches to commemorating such sites, including ghosted structures in contemporary materials, interpretive exhibits using contemporary technologies like virtual or augmented reality and three-dimensional projections.”22

In 2019, ICCROM and ICOMOS launched a call for expressions of interest for the preparation of case studies as part of a joint project to analyze examples of recovery and reconstruction.23

20

“Warsaw Recommendation,” 335. Rössler, “Editorial,” 5. 22 Cameron, “Reconstruction,” 66. 23 ICOMOS-ICCROM, “Analysis of Case Studies.”. 21

206

F. LeBlanc

12.9 Conclusion The theme of the eleventh Montreal Round Table is still current and will certainly remain so for the foreseeable future. The States Parties to the World Heritage Convention as well as the UNESCO World Heritage Centre expect answers to these questions and a clear doctrine from the custodians of the principles of cultural heritage conservation. This is our challenge.

François LeBlanc is a heritage conservation architect. From 2001 to 2008, he was Head of Field Projects at the Getty Conservation Institute in Los Angeles. He served as Chief Architect of the National Capital Commission in Ottawa (1992–2001) and was Vice-President of the Heritage Canada Foundation (1983–1992). As Director of the ICOMOS Secretariat in Paris (1979–1982) he spoke on behalf of the organization during the early meetings of the World Heritage Committee.

Chapter 13

Balancing Tourism and Heritage Conservation: A World Heritage Context Mechtild Rössler

Abstract Tourism and World Heritage form a complex relationship: natural and cultural World Heritage sites benefit from tourism, and visitors enjoy experiencing the diversity, significance and Outstanding Universal Value for which the sites have been recognized globally. A substantive increase in international tourism in the past decades, however, coined the term “overtourism” and has had a considerable impact on World Heritage properties. The 2017 Montreal Round Table Balancing Tourism and Heritage Conservation: a World Heritage Context discussed mass tourism and its impact on World Heritage conservation. It also examined pertinent case studies. Possible ways forward include an integrative approach towards sustainable tourism, an open dialogue among stakeholders as well as best practice in site interpretation to assist visitors to fully understand the significance of these special places. Keyword World Heritage sites · Sustainable tourism · World Heritage conservation · Overtourism · Site interpretation · Tourism toolkit

13.1 Introduction The enormous increase in global tourism, particularly cultural and ecotourism, in the past twenty years has had a considerable impact on World Heritage sites. As a result, the crucial connections among tourism development, community relations and World Heritage conservation need to be further explored. It is critical to develop equitable and fair solutions. The 2017 Montreal Round Table Balancing Tourism and Heritage Conservation: a World Heritage Context examined the subject in the context of this phenomenon.1 Round Table participants discussed mass tourism and its impact on the protection

1

Cameron and Cardin-Pilon, Balancing Tourism and Heritage Conservation.

M. Rössler (B) CNRS-UMR 8504 Géographie-Cités Paris (France), Freiburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2023 C. Cameron (ed.), Evolving Heritage Conservation Practice in the 21st Century, Creativity, Heritage and the City 5, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-2123-2_13

207

208

M. Rössler

of World Heritage sites as well as case studies on balancing tourism and conservation. They encouraged an integrative approach and an open dialogue among all stakeholders. In addition, participants supported quality products and excellence in site interpretation in order to improve visitor experience and help people better understand the significance of these special places. The recent evolution is even more dramatic. The notion of “mass tourism” is now replaced by the terms “overtourism” or “hypertourism” in international media,2 a clear sign that local communities are reaching a tipping point when they no longer accept to have their lives completely altered to address increasing tourism needs. The United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has made efforts to understand the implications of overtourism.3 Clear indicators of resistance are drastic measures such as entry fees into historic cities, electronic monitoring of visitors in some properties (Dubrovnik, Croatia) and requests from local communities or public officials asking UNESCO for Danger listing of World Heritage sites. A critical analysis by Seraphin, Sheeran and Pilato suggests that overtourism could lead to the decline of Venice as a tourist destination. Their overall assessment is stark: “The reasons for this rise in anti-tourism are varied and include: the large number of visitors is putting the UNESCO World Heritage status of some destinations at risk; tourists are impacting negatively on the quality of life of locals; the environmental sustainability of destinations is being jeopardised; and the positive contribution of tourists (day trippers) to local legal businesses being limited.”4 It is now high time to take stock of the relationship between heritage conservation and tourism. The current situation calls for an examination of how cultural tourism and ecotourism are being developed and how these approaches affect the heritage values, physical and experiential qualities of historic places and landscapes, taking into account views of heritage experts and specialists from diverse disciplines and regions. “World Heritage” is a unique brand. It is a label of excellence that attracts tourism globally5 and is used extensively in marketing and communication from the tourism industry. While intense tourism development was not originally intended when the World Heritage Convention was adopted in 1972, its evolution came in parallel with the development of tourism globally. After World War II, travel became more affordable and in the 1970s tourism became a major industry with increasing air travel, especially towards Mediterranean, Asian and Caribbean destinations. By the time the first World Heritage List was established in 1978, a pattern of increased visitation at some UNESCO destinations was already evident. Slowly World Heritage sites became engines for tourism-based economic development. Salazar and Zhu point out that “the interface between heritage and tourism is extremely complex.”6 As tourism can pose a serious conservation challenge for many 2

Capocchi et al., “Overtourism,” 1–18. UNWTO, “ Overtourism ?” 1–60. 4 Seraphin et al., “Over-tourism,” 374. 5 Gao and Su, “Is the World Heritage,” 1–23; Gravari-Barbas, “Tourism,” 173–6. 6 Salazar and Zhu, “Heritage and tourism,” 240. 3

13 Balancing Tourism and Heritage Conservation: A World Heritage Context

209

World Heritage sites, the increase in visitation underlines the key importance of developing effective visitor management strategies. Indeed, the World Heritage Committee warned about threats of a proposed hotel and ski resort at Pirin National Park (Bulgaria) as early as 1985.7 A holistic integrative approach to heritage conservation and management is required.

13.2 Challenges The exponential growth in heritage-related tourism is a relatively recent phenomenon resulting from many converging factors. In this evolution, World Heritage sites are considered key magnets for international leisure travel. But such growth comes at a cost to the condition of these sites and can negatively impact the conservation of their Outstanding Universal Value, the very reason for which they have been recognized globally and inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List. Social inequality, economic stability, seasonality and the fragile nature of many destinations are emerging as key factors affecting the resiliency of coping with increased visitor numbers. According to statistics collected by the World Heritage Centre, 143 World Heritage sites (two-thirds located in Europe and North America, and Asia and the Pacific regions) have been negatively affected by tourism, mostly linked to tourism infrastructure and unsustainable visitor numbers. Some examples of World Heritage sites with high visitation are found in Table 13.1. Yet so far, no World Heritage site has been inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger as a result of excessive tourism, although the Committee has observed that several properties, like the Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu (Peru) or Venice and its Lagoon (Italy), are at very high risk (Table 13.2). Although there is no direct causal link between the UNESCO designation and increased visitor numbers, data supports the conclusion that the economic value of World Heritage site status is not automatically created by the designation itself, but is unlocked by the motivations and actions of the local stakeholders. Often an increase occurs during the first year after inscription.8 Given this finding, Professors Caust and Vecco even ask “Is UNESCO World Heritage recognition a blessing or a burden?”.9 Tourism tendencies indicate continual growth in the sector that will lead to more pressure on World Heritage properties. The mass tourism model that characterized the tour operator industry over recent years has been linear and based on quantity, not quality. This has led to market demand for low-priced tourism dependent on increasing numbers in order to achieve economic benefits. Other economic models exist that are based on providing a quality tourism product that is sustainable, but 7

UNESCO, “Pirin National Park.” The state of conservation database describes the hotel and ski station development. 8 Rebanks, World Heritage Status, 1–4. 9 Caust and Vecco, “Is UNESCO World Heritage Recognition,” 1.

210

M. Rössler

Table 13.1 Tourism statistics at selected cultural/mixed World Heritage sites. Table by Mechtild Rössler based on information collected at the UNESCO World Heritage Centre Name/Date of inscription

Country

Visitor numbers at the time Latest Visitor numbers of the inscription (year)

Angkor (1992)

Cambodia