Recently there have been a number of occassions when I have been  told by other people just what should constitute World Heritage, in most cases it appears to be that people have a vested interest in the particular site or area they are suggesting should be world heritage. But just what should World Heritage be?

We have a clear set of guidelines available to us to refer to, those of the 1972 World Heritage Convention, so why do people ask the same question again and again, and why do they firmly believe ‘thier site’ should be on the ‘list’ of World Heritage sites when quite frankly it probably shouldn’t?

Is there an underlying problem with peoples understanding of what the World Heritage Convention was and is all about, or is there a problem with the Convention?

Wouldn’t it be good if heritage sites could be more or less self sufficient?  Entrance fees, profits from souvenirs, etc, all monies should go towards the upkeep of the site and staffing costs.  Is it fair to charge visitors to see what is their own heritage?  How many visitors are locals or even nationals of the site?  It would be naive to suggest that I should be able to go to the cinema without paying for a ticket - after all the film had to be made, the actors paid, the cinema has bills to pay to enable it to run and it also has to make a profit or it will close down.  Is it the responsibility of the local taxpayer to subsidise my visit to the cinema?  I’ve chosen to go there.  If I choose to visit an ancient site, why should the local taxpayer subsidise my visit there?  It must be possible to charge a fair entrance fee to a site that doesn’t result in a burden on people who happen to live nearby and, of course, the site doesn’t actually have to turn in a profit, it only needs to break even.

Following the episode of BBC2 series Saving Britain’s Past on the Blaenavon World Heritage Site, my colleagues and I have once again been debating the usabilty of a heritage site as a tool for community and economic regeneration. We’ve been asking questions like is it really the job of the site, landscape or  monument to regenerate a community? And with a growing trend for local government departments, community groups amongst others to see heritage as a ‘cash cow’ should we be getting worried that the heritage we are so keen to protect and conserve is just another commodity? Is tourism really the best option and only option for the securing the long term future of sites? Or conversely are we (the profession) simply being a little too precious about our heritage?

Tourism featured heavily in Tom Dyckhoff’s recent visit to Blaenavon in Saving Britain’s Past, it appeared from the programme that the only hope for the Big Pit, Ironworks and  town of Blaenavon was to turn to tourism to save their struggling economy and community. But was this really the case? The programme suggested that Big Pit and the Blaenavon World Heritage landscape were somehow an odd choice, or at least initially seen to be an odd choice for inscription onto the World Heritage List, but in a world with changing attitudes to heritage and the growing recognition of the importance of industry in the development of our modern world this seems a little short sighted.

The programme went on to interview a series of local government officials and individuals involved in the early management of the sites along with residents of the town and local businesses. Interestingly ,no one currently involved in the management of the World Heritage Site or Big Pit mining museum were included in the programme, I was left wondering why, it seemed a missed opportunity.

Focusing back on heritage tourism, in particular to World Heritage sites, would it be fair to say do you suppose that applications for World Heritage Site status are made on a twofold basis, that of conservation and also tourism? I would say that this is becoming more often the case than not. It is important to remember that world heritage tourism brings with it great costs as well as benefits, whilst increased ticket sales and visitor spending are evident there is also often an accompanying added strain on the fabric of a destination and the community therein. Many of the residents of Blaenavon were seen to note in Saving Britain’s Past that the world heritage label has brought increased tourism but they’ve still lost facilities for themselves as a local community. It is a difficult line for the heritage promoter/professional to walk, between protecting and promoting a world heritage site and managing the hopes of the local community who are occasionally left expecting miracle transformations.

Is there a need for a refocusing on the heritage and its benefits to enriching local life rather than it being seem as a cash generator which somehow becomes detached from those whose heritage it truly is?

13 new sites have been added to UNESCO’s World Heritage List which lost one site while three were placed on the ‘In Danger’ List.

The World Heritage Committee held its 33rd session last month, the session was chaired by María Jesús San Segundo, the Ambassador and Permanent Delegate of Spain to UNESCO. The Committee  inscribed two new natural sites and 11 cultural sites on UNESCO’s World Heritage List and withdrew one site from the List, Dresden Elbe Valley (Germany)- the decision to remove the Dresden Elbe Valley is sited as due to the ongoing construction of a four lane highway through the cultural landscape.

A further three sites were inscribed on UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger (apparently in an attempt to help raise international support for their preservation) and one site removed from the ‘In Danger’ list.

Burkina Faso, Cape Verde and Kyrgyzstan all had sites inscribed into the World Heritage List for the first time in this session.

A list of sites and their relative inscriptions as decided by the 33rd session of the WH Committee follows;

Natural sites inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List:

The Wadden Sea (Germany / The Netherlands)

The Dolomites (Italy)

Cultural sites inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage List:

Stoclet House (Belgium)

The Ruins of Loropéni (Burkina Faso)

Cidade Velha, Historic Centre of Ribeira Grande (Cape Verde)

Mount Wutai (China)

Shushtar, Historical Hydraulic System (Iran)

Sulamain-Too Sacred Mountain (Kyrgyzstan)

The Sacred City of Caral-Supe (Peru)

The Royal Tombs of the Joseon Dynasty (Republic of Korea)

The Tower of Hercules (Spain)

La Chaux-de-Fonds / Le Locle watchmaking town-planning (Switzerland)

Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal (United Kingdom)

Extensions added to World Heritage properties:

The Great Saltworks of Salins-les-Bains (France)

Levoca (in Slovakia)

Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (Philippines)

Sites removed from UNESCO’s World Heritage List:

Germany’s Dresden Elbe Valley

Sites removed from UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger:

The walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah’s Palace and Maiden Tower (Azerbaijan)

Sites added to UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger:

Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Belize)

Los Katios National Park (Colombia)

The Historical Monuments of Mtskheta (Georgia)

This news has sparked some debate in my office regarding the validity of some World Heritage Sites, there have been some questions asked of the relative importance of sites added to the list compared to those already on it and other sites which aren’t ‘world heritage’. Following the UK’s DCMS consultation on World Heritage Sites status and its suggestion of a European Heritage List or equivalent have left some question marks regarding the levels of importance assigned to sites. Personally I’m not too keen on further division and labelling, it seems likely to only to add to the confusion….

The presentation, interpretation and use of heritage in the community can be seen to be limited by the legal framework within which archaeology and hertage protection exits.

It can be difficult to see how connections between the community and the  rigid framework of policies,laws and designations governing heritage can exist especially when that framework appears at first to pay little regard to the modern community and benefits they can draw from a heritage ‘resource’.

We have to ask ourselves are the systems we are working in serving only to protect the heritage or are they protecting the heritage to serve the communities in which that heritage exists? If the answer is that the system only serves to protect the heritage then is that really a problem, is it really the job of an archaeological site, listed building or artefact to rejuvenate and regenerate a failing community?

Perhaps the question is actually should there ever be a mutually beneficial relationship between heritage, law and the community, and if so how far can that relationship go before one part suffers at the expense of another?

Easter Week Survey - Initial Report

Click on the link above to see some initial results from the Easter Week survey ‘09 carried out at Herculaneum. The report pulls together some of the initial key results from the week long data gather, more in depth analysis of results is coming soon! Let me know what you think of the basic data and make some suggestions about analysis which you think could be useful!

You can email any completed questionnaires back to cloegerrard@hotmail.com

Thanks!

survey-version-english

survey-version-italian

survey-version-french

survey-version-spanish

For the first two weeks in April I have been busy conducting a visitor survey the WHS at Herculaneum, a copy of the questionnaire used will be available on line soon for you to download, fill in and post back!

A 5% sample of visitors to site was survey each day over the Easter period. A summary of results will be compiled soon once all the data has been tabulated in my access database and reviewed.

One of the most interesting ‘extra’ comments made was from an American geology lecturer who pointed out that the site of Herculaneum isn’t really set within its natural context with the geological sequence, the stratigraphy of lava flows are obscured from view and are not presented to the public. Interesting point, what do you think?

Pictures Courtesy of Sarah Court HCP

The Place, Space and Conservation Conference held in Manchester explored the impact of heritage-led regeneration on crime reduction, health and social and community cohesion; and featured speakers from national and local government, funders and agencies, and case studies from throughout the UK from commercial and voluntary sector developers. The following is a brief write up from my conference notes along with a few of my own thoughts (in blue) regarding topics and themes addressed by the speakers during the two day event. If you attended the conference and have any comments or points you’d like to raise please leave a post!

Thursday 13 and Friday 14 November 2008
At The Monastery of St Francis, Gorton Lane, Manchester

Lecture 1 Sue Clifford – Common Ground, www.commonground.org.uk, www.england-in-particular.info

- Detail of Place
- Ordinary places/nowhere special, legislation has limited focus on ordinary places that ‘locals’ consider important.
- Projects need to ask ‘locals’ what is important here to you.
- Maps/arts projects – creation of maps by local people, school and other groups of importance in local area/parish. Getting people to show through artwork what is important to them, (a good project to use when working with local school groups) part of the common ground project.
- Also Alphabets of place – using a letter to indicate what the individual/group thinks are important features (this has been done by some groups in the North of Italy in the Alp region).

How can meaning or significance be placed within legislation?

- Aiding local economy and culture – supporting local skills, maintaining local building types and building techniques
- Also working with the natural environment (ie like HCP rubbish and recycling schools project)

Lecture 2 Jenny Abramsky – (Chair Heritage Lottery Fund), Heritage and Regeneration

Examples;
Blaenavon – local young people aren’t aware of their town’s role in the history of the industrial revolution on a worldwide scale and the importance of the town as a centre for industry etc
At Blaenavon the HLF have provided funding for projects to protect and conserve the fabric of buildings – JA notes that without long term active use these buildings will deteriorate – therefore it is essential to involve the local community in the care of these buildings if their funding is to have been worthwhile.
Oral history projects - Recording the history of communities that are changing
i.e. Bataville – the town here developed around a shoe factory that has now closed. (Apparently) the project recording people’s memories of the town and its origins has given the community hope (how?) as their existence/past has been recorded and their importance recognised in the heritage scene (hmmm????).
- JA notes that this project has linked the modern community with its heritage, and has generated a positive relationship between the two.
- JA also states that for any regeneration strategy to succeed it needs to include heritage and conservation. Consideration of the community’s origins/roots/birth/creation is necessary in order to be successful and achieve longevity in redevelopment.

Re-use of buildings/spaces is noted as important (how can this be achieved for archaeological sites – can it?).

Conservation work should include a training opportunities (for the local community and others).

Cultural tourism – part of a successful economy?
Examples;
Swansea Waterfront Museum
SS Great Britain
- JA noted the above as successful examples where HLF funding has boosted the local economy/created new employment.

Lecture 3 Chris Oldershaw – (Chief Executive), Gloucester Heritage Urban Regeneration Co, can Heritage Power Urban Regeneration?

CO believes that Yes it can but identifies what he believes are the issues that need to be addressed first in order to be successful in this aim, these are;
- overcome negative perceptions of heritage
- create an ‘aspirational’ comprehensive plan
- promote design excellence
- engage the wider community in regeneration

Example
INHERIT International Network of Historic Cities http://www.inheritproject.net/theproject.asp/ - in conjunction with the European Association of Historic Towns and Regions http://www.historic-towns.org/home.asp
(launched 2002)

i.e. The Grainger Town Project, Newcastle Upon Tyne http://www.newcastle.gov.uk/grainger.nsf
- CO noted that there were many empty buildings in the city centre and one of their aims was to tackle this, which they perceived to be a problem.
- One project was that of a ‘community video diary’ – CO says this was very successful.

- An issues CO now faces with his work in Gloucester is a lack of ‘evening economy’, an issue he wishes to tackle with a mix of projects aimed at both the younger and older generation.

- CO believes one of the keys to success is to generate a coherent programme to market the city and to advertise the heritage of the city.

CO also sets out a series of stages he believes are essential to the structuring of large scale heritage led urban regeneration, these are;
- the need to have a set of baseline data of the existing
- an aim of what result is wanted from the project
- a plan of/focus for works
- a business plan including details of how the project will be funded
- a set vision of what you would like to see happen at the end of the project
- a series of check points throughout
- continual public consultation – consideration of what is important to the community
Engagement with the wider community in the above projects is being/was achieve through several activities, including;
- community forums/contact
- urban youth forum, who visited other cities across Europe as part of this project for inspiration and education
- mobile exhibition, informing community of works
- appointment of a community engagement manager
- appointment of a community ambassador
- gaining a commitment from other agencies/bodies to add value
- for example, the police, educational bodies, others in social sector
- consulting these groups on work under way and also challenging them to add further value

Lecture 4 Jamie Coath – (Principal), Purcell Miller Tritton (Architects),The Reinstatement of Place.

Case Study - Kirkstall Abbey, Leeds

- A key issue here was visitor access verses site security

Case Study – Roundhay Park, Leeds
- disused buildings were reinstated to a similar but not identical form as previously, as there was a need to ensure the structures were more robust for modern use.

A key requirement for both of the above projects was the use of memory and familiarity as a driver for the reinstatement of cultural significance to these places.

JC identified the importance of continuity and context in regeneration to encourage a reuse and ensure the long term continuance of use of regenerated structures/places, fitting regeneration activities closely into existing cultures.

Lecture 5 Ian Lush (Chief Executive - Architectural Heritage Fund www.ahfund.org) and Ela Palmer (Ela Palmer Heritage ela@elapalmer.org) – The Social Impacts of Heritage Led Regeneration.

IL and EP note some of the negative impacts common to all regeneration
- stress and pressure
- displacement
- changing communities
- gentrification

IL and EP note that regeneration projects require consistent evaluation, over a long time period – as currently truly comparable data regarding their effects is unavailable – at present limited to anecdotal evidence.
- they believe statistical evidence collection is essential
- evidence should be collected over a long time period as it may take some time for benefits to become apparent

Lecture 6 Dr Alison Cooper – Penryn Townscape Heritage Initiative http://www.carrick.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=3077

- the project aims were split between aims to regenerate the area and to reinstate out of use buildings through incentive schemes – however this was not totally successful as it was met with a lack of local enthusiasm, due to lack of cash to make up remaining cost of incentivised works)
- (similar to an incentive scheme in Ercolano – where again uptake was very limited as again cash required to make up remaining cost not available and also an apparent lack of promotion of the incentive scheme)
- one of the prerequisites of this incentive scheme was however that all applications for funding had to prove that the work undertaken would be contributing to sustainable development/improvement works that would result in long term investment/use of a business (Dr AC noted that ‘artspaces’ were not necessarily a favoured option).
- Dr AC also notes that feedback from the community regarding what they feel are the benefits is essential to create a future for these kind of projects and to ensure the future for these heritage assets.

Lecture 7 John Rodger (Blaenavon Project Director) and Dr Peter Wakelin (Secretary RCHAMW) – World Heritage and Regeneration: Lessons from Blaenavon

Brief history Blaenavon
1786 – Establishment of Blaenavon, the town developed around the industrial works

18th C the industrial peak

20th C a rapid decline in industry and population

Building the future on the past
- conference and action from Torfaen LPA to ‘fix’ the area
- aims in 1997 were
- establishment of WHS
- improving the environment for residents
- development of a Blaenavon heritage regeneration strategy
- establish a beginning for improvement

Inscription onto WH List in 2000

Blaenavon is close to Abergavenny (about 10 minutes apart) – Abergavenny is and was a very popular town with loads going on, food festivals etc. Blaenavon town on the other hand was very depressed economically and socially – the economy was non existent; the population was extremely low; people were moving away.

Blaenavon part of a wide landscape with heritage assets/arc externally and internally within the town -  Ercolano is more centralised.

The Blaenavon Partnership – a group led by Torfaen CBC
There are 13 members of this group who all work together to contribute to the effective management of the WHS. – JR and Dr PW say that an effective management structure creating and maintaining partnerships is essential.
The Blaenavon Partnership’s aim and remit are to protect the story of Blaenavon for future generations, but also to promote and oversee cultural tourism to benefit economically from heritage.

i.e The Big Pit Mining Museum – all guides working here are former miners

The day-to-day work of facilitating tourism/visitors and maintaining the sites is carried out by a WHS site warden and by volunteers form the local community.

*The main concern of the partnership was renewal/improvement of the town. In order to achieve this it was necessary to promote the town and sites as places to visit. The first steps taken included;
- ‘building the brand’ to create a consistent image of the town linking it with the surrounding industrial landscape
- instituting the ‘Blaenavon World Heritage Day’ along with a series of other events through the summer, including fireworks displays
JR and Dr PW ask what are the benefits of heritage led regeneration as seen at Blaenavon;
- heritage assets preserved
- improvement of ‘social cohesion’
- development of training schemes – passing on skills
- new jobs
- new business
- increase in property value
- change in perception of the heritage within the local community and also the national and international community

Lecture 8 Paul Squires, Civic Trust and David Habersham Malvern High Street UK – Resident Led High Street Regeneration

www.highstreetuk.org.uk/index.html
www.highstreetmalvern.org.uk
www.mainstreet.org/

Main Street USA forms the basis of a model for this programme – the project has been piloted in Malvern and Brentford

Principles of the project are;
- incremental progress
- change is difficult and should be openly discussed from outset

Problems they wanted to avoid were;
- becoming a team of well meaning individuals rather than an effective group
- overcomplicating their aims
- ‘reinventing the wheel’ as many local community groups were already in existence in Malvern who it was essential to communicate with and build connections with
- becoming politically of self interest driven

Author: Claudine Gerrard, 2009

The Depratment of Culture, Media and Sport have recently undertaken a consultation exercise aimed at reiewing the UK’s current and future policies on World Heritage Sites. A copy of the DCMS’s current mission statement and questions posed by the consultation can be seen below, followed by my response.

DCMS Mission Statement;

‘Our aim is to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities, support the pursuit of excellence, and champion the tourism, creative and leisure industries’

UNESCO’s World Heritage mission is to:
Encourage countries to sign the World Heritage Convention and to ensure the protection of their natural and cultural heritage;

Encourage States Parties to the Convention to nominate sites within their national territory for inclusion on the World Heritage List;

Encourage States Parties to establish management plans and set up reporting systems on the state of conservation of their World Heritage sites;

Help States Parties safeguard World Heritage properties by providing technical assistance and professional training;

Provide emergency assistance for World Heritage sites in immediate danger;

Support States Parties’ public awareness-building activities for World Heritage conservation;

Encourage participation of the local population in the preservation of their cultural and natural heritage;

Encourage international cooperation in the conservation of our world’s cultural and natural heritage.

Questions posed by Conusultation

Question 1: Given the factors we have set out in this document, which of the following options should we adopt in relation to the future nomination of sites for World Heritage Status?

Continue to nominate annually from our existing Tentative List;

Suspend new nominations for a period;

Draw up a shorter and more focused Tentative List, spacing out our nominations so that we are not necessarily proposing a new site each year and introducing a two-stage application process to filter out early those sites unlikely to be successful (preferred option); and/or

Consider alternative designations such as a National Heritage List or the European Heritage label.

Question 2: What further measures should be considered to improve the management and promotion of our World Heritage Sites?

In response to the question of nominations a simple approach would seem to be the best option. Drawing up a shorter and more focused tentative list would be appropriate for future listings, however at present it is perhaps more important to focus on refining the application process, this is likely to be viewed as a fairer option by potential and existing nominees alike. Restricting the number of possible applications and/or removing altogether the existing tentative list could potentially be viewed as unfair.

There is a case for stopping new nominations for a set period in order to redress the existing imbalance as identified by the World Heritage Committee’s ‘Global Strategy for a Balanced, Representative and Credible World Heritage List’.

As PwC have identified there is a current trend to view WHS designation as a key to unlocking funding and as a tool for regeneration rather than one for protection and conservation, and it may be that a halt to applications would provide an opportunity to ‘refresh’ perceptions of WHS listing.

However the idea of creating alternative designations could potentially be counter effective, having a detrimental effect on the valuation of other heritage ‘assets’, particularly at a national level of designation, such designations may erode the importance of ‘assets’ considered nationally important at present but not important enough to add to the ‘almost a WHS’ national list.

In terms of creating a European heritage label it is hard to see any real benefit that could be derived from this, moreover it could be seen to be in contrary to the WH Committee’s Global Strategy in which a predominance of European sites was identified and seen to be in need of redress. The creation of a European  ‘almost a WHS’ list could only swing the balance further in favour of this already over represented group. In addition the creation of either of these potential extra lists would only add to an already over complicated system of heritage ‘asset’ classification, as stated earlier the answer to solving the ‘issue’ of nominations should be a simple approach.

In response to the second question, regarding further measures that should be considered to improve the management and promotion of our WHS, the issue that should take the utmost priority is the refocusing of our perception of WHS status towards a stronger bias for conservation, re-identifying a connection with the principles behind our protection of outstanding natural and cultural resources.

A greater emphasis could be placed on locally based activities at WH Sites, particularly promotion, encouragement and support for community involvement in the ‘care’ of the WHS, projects could take various forms, from the setting up of a regular ‘tidying team’ or the involvement of local groups/individuals as points of information or ‘local guides’ for visitors to a WHS.

Of particular concern was the statement in chapter 7, para 7.24 of the consultation document, that for some WH Sites the failure to promote their status was a “deliberate choice” as “WHS status and ‘heritage’…are not…seen as a good fit with the image they wish to portray”. Considering the non-statutory nature of WHS status and the negligible additional protection this listing confers upon a site (beyond ‘material consideration’ under Article 1 (5) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 and Welsh Office Circular 61/96, Planning and the Historic Environment) any wish by a ‘site’ not to promote its WHS status is thrown into serious question. Such inaction could surely be potentially seen as contrary to the UNESCO mission statement for WH Sites, which promotes the raising of awareness. A measure necessary in this case to improve our promotion of WH Sites would be to confer a duty upon all those wishing to become and those existing as WH Sites to promote their status and the philosophy and structure of the system behind that status, at least at a basic level all WH Sites should act as a point of reference or information for visitors and other interested parties to UNESCO and WH Sites. A wider view of WHS internationally and connections between neighbours is key to the effective future management and promotion of the UK’s WH Sites.

Greater inclusion of WHS and other heritage issues into schools curriculums would be worthwhile, particularly in areas of Personal and Social Education or ‘PSE’.

Finally however it is essential that at some point WH Sites are recognised in statute becoming included in heritage protection law and that a greater emphasis is placed on government guidance and responsibility for sites that are and those looking to become WH Sites, taking a share of the responsibility that is currently divided up between local authorities, private individuals, organisations and in many cases voluntary groups.

Author: Claudine Gerrard, 2009