Roadmap for the Nomination of Reconstructed Cultural Properties for Inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage List

Abstract

Guidance on reconstruction is being prepared to implement recent decisions of the World Heritage (WH) Committee. Special attention is given to reconstruction post-inscription within the framework of the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of destroyed cultural WH properties. However, guidance must also cover reconstruction pre-inscription because destroyed properties on the Tentative Lists of States Parties may be reconstructed and nominated for inscription on the WH List in the future. This article shifts the attention towards the latter. It revisits the pillars of OUV and elucidates the relation between key concepts to develop a roadmap for new nominations in line with the WH Convention and the growing understanding of heritage as dynamic process in scholarly literature. It explains that States Parties must provide a statement of cultural significance (SCS) to meet the qualifying condition of continuity, and a heritage impact report (HIR) to meet the qualifying conditions of compatibility and distinction. Cultural criteria (i)–(vi) form a reminder list rather than a selection list in the roadmap. The SCS and HIR are, instead, the criteria on the basis of which reconstructed cultural properties may be inscribed. Moreover, authenticity and integrity are rendered redundant by the three qualifying conditions. As a result, this article makes a timely, original, academic and operational contribution to the ongoing preparation of guidance at the international level.

Authenticity or Continuity in the Implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention? Scrutinizing Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, 1978–2019

“…Authenticity appears to be redundant. Continuity should replace authenticity in the Operational Guidelines for this reason, in addition to reasons voiced in previous studies, mentioned in the Introduction [15][16][17]. ICOMOS was actually willing to replace authenticity with another requirement.…”

“…It does not mean however, that no change can be accepted" [14] (p. 168). In a series of articles published in international peer-reviewed journals, an independent researcher proposes replacing authenticity with continuity in the Operational Guidelines not only to nominate reconstructed properties for inscription on the World Heritage List [15,16], but also to nominate all cultural, natural, and mixed properties in future, arguing that this replacement can bridge the culture/nature divide, facilitate the application of people-centered approaches to conservation, and enhance the role of communities [17]. Finally, in a book chapter about "How to be Authentic in the UNESCO World Heritage System", the author points out: "When one scrutinises what the World Heritage institutions really look for, it is in fact continuity over time, be it continuity of material, form, usage, or some other aspect mentioned in the Venice Charter or the Nara Document.…”

Mapping attributes and managing heritage sites: the case of the Old Town of Ghadames-Libya

“…They change according to advancements in the field or other factors, such as man-made or climate crises. The understanding of values has implications for the understanding of OUV in the WH system (Khalaf, 2018) and is especially important when carrying out our assessments in a WH context.…”