2009 Vol. 63 · No. 2 · pp. 103–121

GLOBAL CULTURAL GOVERNANCE. DECISION-MAKING CONCERNING WORLD HERITAGE BETWEEN POLITICS AND SCIENCE

Thomas M. Schmitt

With 5 figures, 2 tables and 1 photo Received 11 May 2008 · Accepted 12 February 2009

Summary: The issue of heritage has become fashionable in the cultural sciences, with UNESCO’s World Heritage pro- gramme attracting a great deal of academic attention. However, there has been no social study of the global level of World Heritage governance, which can be seen as an example of global cultural governance – societal governance and regulation of cultural expressions and cultural orientation systems. This paper first discusses the concept of cultural governance as an approach for social and cultural sciences and applies it to the specific case of World Heritage. Empirically, the paper is based essentially on an observation of two sessions of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 2006 and 2007. It is shown that within the Committee, and to a certain extent also within UNESCO’s official advisory bodies, there are different understandings of key concepts (such as outstanding universal value) and key instruments (such as World Heritage List in Danger, benchmarks); however, this pluralism need not necessarily be detrimental to the successful governance of World Heritage properties. The practice of decision-making on the basis of “far-fetched facts” is a problem for the credibility of the global institutions in multilevel governance systems or international regimes.

Zusammenfassung: Die Beschäftigung mit dem Thema des kulturellen Erbes hat innerhalb verschiedener kulturwissen- schaftlicher Disziplinen Konjunktur; dem UNESCO-Welterberegime kommt dabei eine besondere Beachtung zu. Bislang ist jedoch keine sozialwissenschaftliche, auf der Methode der teilnehmenden Beobachtung beruhende Rekonstruktion der Entscheidungsvorgänge auf der globalen Ebene der Welterbegovernanz bekannt. Letztere wird zunächst als Spezialfall eines allgemeineren Konzepts von kultureller Governanz (cultural governance) diskutiert. Empirisch beruht der Artikel vor allem auf der Beobachtung zweier Sitzungen des UNESCO-Welterbekomitees in den Jahren 2006 und 2007. Es wird aufgezeigt, wie bestimmte Schlüsselbegriffe („außergewöhnlicher universaler Wert“) und Schlüsselinstrumente der Welt- erbekonvention verschiedene Interpretationen von Seiten unterschiedlicher Akteursgruppen erfahren und wie sich dies auf die Welterbegovernanz auswirkt. Zudem werden die Probleme des Urteilens über weit entfernte Orte in Mehrebenen- Governanzsystemen aufgezeigt.

Keywords: Cultural governance, global governance, World Heritage, UNESCO, international organization

1 Introduction: towards a cultural geography tradition. It was self-reflection on the part of socie- of world heritage ties that perceived themselves as being in a situa- tion of great upheaval that led to the “invention” It seems to be fashionable today in the social of cultural heritage and the institutionalization of and cultural sciences to discuss issues relating to the protection of historic monuments in Europe, cultural heritage. As to the reasons for this increased following the iconoclasm of the French Revolution academic interest in heritage, one could plausibly (cf. Choay 1997). But the current interest in herit- assume that it reflects a greater social interest in the age may also be due to other factors. These include topic. The latter would then appear to be a reaction a discursive event that has been much discussed in to the acceleration of globalization and moderniza- the cultural sciences: the adoption in 2003 of the tion phenomena in the past ten to fifteen years, in UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the which the particular, in other words the local, is at Intangible Cultural Heritage, a kind of sister con- risk of being lost and replaced by globally standard- vention to the World Heritage Convention of 1972 ized architectures and consumer cultures (cf. Augé (Schmitt 2008). And in the last ten years there has 1992). According to this interpretation, the current been a clear shift of focus in the cultural sciences interest in heritage is the continuation of an older literature on heritage, with new approaches being

DOI: 10.3112/erdkunde.2009.02.01 ISSN 0014-0015 http://www.giub.uni-bonn.de/erdkunde 104 Vol. 63· No. 2 developed in the light of a social constructivist of expression, symbols and collective sense and mean- paradigm (cf. Graham et al. 2000; Kirshenblatt- ing. Thus, it approaches the cultural from the perspec- Gimblett 2004; Albert and Gauer-Lietz 2006; Di tive of the social sciences (cf. Cappai 2001, especially for Giovine 2009). cultural geography for instance Lippuner 2005, Werlen Much of this academic attention is devoted to 2003). The reconstruction of variously conceived rela- UNESCO’s World Heritage programme, which is un- tions between orientation systems, social and economic derstandable for several reasons. For the general public, structures, and social and political action, has been a UNESCO’s World Heritage List serves as a reference central preoccupation of the social sciences since Karl for what is worth preserving for future generations. The Marx and Max Weber; it is specified by the cultural gov- international organization UNESCO and its official ad- ernance approach outlined in this paper. The Frankfurt visory bodies can be understood as important global School, with its reflections on mass culture, the so-called standard setters in questions of safeguarding cultural and cultural industry (Horkheimer and Adorno 1969, orig. natural heritage, whose recommendations and concepts 1947) and the mutual relations between “culture and are taken up by other actors. Although numerous stud- administration” (Adorno 1972, orig. 1960), and also ies have been devoted to UNESCO’s World Heritage British Cultural Studies with its work on the regulation programme, one aspect has largely been neglected: the of cultural artefacts (Thompson 1997) can be points of global level of World Heritage governance. Academics reference in reflections on cultural governance. To date, generally prefer to work on heritage in local contexts, and the notion of cultural governance has mainly appeared they frequently share with the local actors they study a in works which can be associated with post-colonialism feeling that the global level of World Heritage govern- and which discuss the cultural representation and cul- ance is an important factor for local concerns, but that it tural suppression of so-called indigenous societies by is something about which little is known. Many specula- European colonial powers and with the governance tions and claims are made in respect of the mechanisms of cultural diversity (cf. Shapiro 2004, also Campbell of World Heritage governance on the global level, as can 2003, 57). be observed not only in local research contexts but also The concept of governance has been widespread in at academic conferences, but few of these claims are the social sciences since the 1990s. Young (1997, 4) of- backed up by empirical evidence. On the other hand, ac- fers the following definition: “At the most general level, tive “insiders” who publish papers on World Heritage do governance involves the establishment and operation of this as a rule in accordance with their role and function, social institutions – in other words, sets of rules, deci- so that the resulting papers are only partially helpful. sion- making procedures, and programmatic activities In this article I will try to open the “black box” of that serve to define social practices and to guide the in- World Heritage governance, and – as far as this is pos- teractions of those participating in these practices”. It is sible within the space available – to throw some light on well known that the concept of governance was devel- the internal processes of World Heritage governance at oped in opposition to government in the classical sense the global level, going beyond what is presented in of- of top-down regulation (Rosenau 1992). According to ficial accounts, and concentrating on one particular case its own definition, the more open concept of governance study. The issue of global World Heritage governance can include this kind of classical government as a par- will be discussed in terms of the broader approach to ticular mode of governance. We need to distinguish the cultural governance presented in section 2. This ap- following dimensions of the concept of governance: proach promises to be fruitful for other research areas • the sectoral dimension or the issue-orientation of gov- in cultural geography and cultural studies. The methodo- ernance, as expressed in terms such as environmental logical background is presented in section 3, followed in governance, risk governance or cultural governance section 4 by an approach to the global decision-making • the structural dimension, which means the institu- level of World Heritage governance. tional framework, the major institutions, recognized rules and organizations in the governance field • the processual dimension, which is concerned with 2 Cultural governance as a research approach the manner of political negotiation and control (such in cultural sciences and cultural geography as government, top-down regulation, or negociation in accordance with Habermas’ ideal of communica- The cultural governance approach presented tive action) here is concerned with the social actors, mechanisms, • the dimension of scale, or reconstruction of the con- conditions and modes of regulation of the social pro- trol of issues by actors and institutions, which can be duction of “culture”, i.e. of cultural and artistic forms attributed to various scales with in the social space (as 2009 T. Schmitt: Global cultural governance. Decision-making concerning World Heritage between politics and science 105 in global governance, urban governance), where actors from Social negotiation and control of the produc- different scales interact with each other (multilevel gov- tion of social sense and meaning, cultural orienta- ernance, cf. Benz 2007), possibly influenced by differ- tion systems and their symbols, and cultural and ing, scale-specific political interpretation cultures artistic forms of expression, is thus central to the • the normative dimension in which the different kinds cultural governance approach. This approach occu- of governance processes and outcomes are assessed pies a unique position in comparison with other sec- normatively, according to general principles (partici- toral forms of governance, such as environmental pation, justice, transparency, legitimation, account- governance. This argument can be justified on three ability, equal representation). levels: (1) Not only those objects of governance des- At first glance, cultural governance appears ignated as cultural, but also the forms of governance to be no different from any other sectoral field of themselves, reproduce or are influenced by norms governance, such as environmental governance. and thus by cultural orientation systems. Putting it However, in view of the high number of differ- in plain terms (and thus admittedly imprecisely), ent understandings of culture (see for instance we can say that a “governanced culture” is opposed Reckwitz 2004) in the social and cultural sciences, to a “culture of governance” (see also Hall 1997). it must be asked what is meant here by “cultural”. The norms and references of the regulated cultural Academic disciplines are obviously no longer in a forms of expression and the dominating norms of position to define their central concepts conclu- the governance system may be congruent or com- sively and in broad consensus with the scientific plementary, but may also be completely different or community, or they can do so only in relation to even diametrically opposed. It can be assumed that specific paradigms; but at least they should be pre- the manner of this relationship leaves neither the pared to wrestle with their central concepts. In a cultural forms of expression nor the regulating sys- narrow sense, cultural governance could be said to tem of governance unchanged. In respect of cultural relate to the political negotiations about established heritage, this aspect is especially relevant with regard cultural institutions or cultural forms, such as thea- to the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding tre, music or opera, and to the control, the societal of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. (2) Governance production and definition of cultural heritage (Fig. approaches not infrequently confront existing forms 1). More broadly conceived concepts of cultural of social control with normative standards that need governance were aimed at the (self-)regulation of to be met, such as participation, accountability, etc. the so-called “cultural industry” (cf. Horkheimer The categories applied in the case of academic ob- and Adorno 1969, orig. 1947), in other words at the servation of social phenomena of course also refer manner of interaction of market, cultural economy, to cultural orientation systems, which must be ap- mass taste and cultural production, which is also propriately reflected on as part of the academic work a favoured subject in British Cultural Studies. The process. (3) In semiotically influenced approaches concept of cultural governance can also be used to used in cultural studies, “culture” or “sense” and mean measures taken by the state (for instance re- “meaning” often appear as the result of operations pressive measures) in respect of cultural forms of in which a meaning and thus sense are attributed to expression, symbols and cultural orientation sys- codes, signs and symbols. But “sense” also has a fur- tems of minorities, and especially of suppressed ther, existential dimension: a performance, a poem, ethnic groups or noncomformist subcultures. a ritual, or the sight of a cultural landscape, may, in Other social subsystems, such as the economy, also certain circumstances, touch a person in an existen- produce their own value structures and symbols; tial manner. This existential personal experience of their (society-wide) influence, and their attempts at sense (even though fleeting and tied to a particular cultural hegemony within society can also be sub- moment) evades any clear external control, but it is sumed under cultural governance. The reconstruc- potentially also relevant for society. Large parts of tion of a concrete cultural governance structure has cultural production are not aimed at communicating to consider the fundamental signifying practices, existential sense. Repressive governance mechanisms the representations and the modes of consumption are aimed at preventing the self-determined experi- of the cultural object, and also its relevancy for the ence of sense. The concept of cultural governance identity of individuals, social groups and societies. is thus also concerned with the social “availability” Insofar, the cultural governance approach presented and plurality of existential sense or its suppression, here is in line with the “Circuit of Culture”-concept according to Galtung’s (1996) concept of “cultural in Thompson (1997) violence”. 106 Vol. 63· No. 2

Fig. 1: Different notions of cultural governance according to different meanings of cultural/culture.

3 Objectives and methodological notes of research into international organizations was the collection of articles The Anatomy of Influence by Cox The 1972 World Heritage Convention (more and Jacobson (1973) on decision-making processes precisely: Convention for the Protection of World in international organizations. The reconstruction Cultural and Natural Heritage) constitutes an impor- of decision-making processes presented in Cox and tant reference example of international cultural gov- Jacobson (1973) was based in particular on the anal- ernance in the form of an international regime and ysis of documents and records of meetings, and in a special type of multilevel governance. The object some cases on interviews with actors. A conceivable of its governance includes cultural and urban land- further development of the approach used in Cox and scapes (and nature reserves), all of which are long- Jacobson (1973) for the empirical study of decision- established subjects of research in geography. making processes in international institutions, using The World Heritage Convention provides a ethnographic approaches, did not at first take place legal blueprint for the interaction of the institu- (but see also Blatter et al. 2007). tions involved, for the governance structure. But Loosely borrowing Goffmann’s (1969) distinction the decision-making processes concerning World between stage and backstage, I would like to distin- Heritage governance cannot be reconstructed by guish three levels of representation of World Heritage studying publicly available UNESCO documents governance: the various fronts or display windows, the only. For this purpose, it is necessary to observe internal semi-public arenas, and the backrooms. concrete decision practices. Fronts/display windows: I use the term display win- The key questions in this part of the paper are dows to refer to those areas of World Heritage gov- the following: what are the framework conditions ernance which are accessible to the public and which today for World Heritage governance and its global as a rule are medially transmitted. The display win- production of sense and meaning? How are essential dows contain those publications by UNESCO and decisions arrived at concerning the World Heritage closely related organizations and cooperation partners List and global governance of World Heritage Sites? (such as National Geographic) that are aimed at a broad What problems are likely to occur in a multi-level public around the world (Fig. 4), or the quarterly jour- governance system in which a committee has to nal World Heritage. The problems and dangers facing judge situations in distant places? Is it possible to World Heritage Sites are also displayed in this window, distinguish different “governance cultures” in re- but set off by success stories and proofs of the ef- spect of World Heritage? fectiveness of global mechanisms for protection of Within the discipline of International Relations the sites. (IR), there was an initial phase of deep interest in Internal arenas: The most important internal are- international organizations from the 1950s to the nas of World Heritage governance are the annual 1970s. An important reference point in this first phase sessions of the World Heritage Committee, at which 2009 T. Schmitt: Global cultural governance. Decision-making concerning World Heritage between politics and science 107 central decisions are made, for instance concerning Heritage Committee, in accordance with the text additions to the World Heritage List. These sessions of the Convention, and in practice it also provides are not public in a formal sense, but take place in the the Committee with information and advice. The presence of a large number of observers, including “counterparts” of the World Heritage Committee, representatives of non-governmental organizations. in the sense of the addressees of most of its deci- They can thus be described as semi-public. sions, are the governments of the countries con- Backrooms: The important decisions in respect of cerned. It is they who nominate possible sites for World Heritage governance are made, as mentioned the World Heritage List, and it is to them that the above, on a semi-public stage. However, these de- Committee turns if it hears of problems at their cisions are necessarily prepared and prestructured, World Heritage Sites. for instance by means of drafts produced by the Besides my research on several different World UNESCO administration and advisory bodies. Heritage Sites, this paper is essentially based on Attempts are also made to influence the decisions my observation of two one-week sessions of the of the Committee by various lobby groups includ- UNESCO World Heritage Committee which I at- ing NGOs. It must be emphasized that although tended with the formal status of an observer. These these preliminary consultations can influence what were the 30th ordinary session of the Committee in takes place in the semi-public arena of the World 2006 in Vilnius, Lithuania, and the 31st session in Heritage Committee, they can in no way predeter- 2007 in Christchurch, New Zealand. In addition to mine the results – there may always be a moment of observing the plenary discussions, I was able to hold surprise in the sessions, a surprising result, a clash many informal conversations, and in certain cases of diverging interests and positions, and expres- interviews, with delegates, UNESCO staff and other sions of necessary and creative freedom. observers during the sessions. In 2004 and 2007 I A first, “thin” description of the global institu- spent several days at the UNESCO headquarters in tions of World Heritage Governance will precede Paris for research purposes. I have also held conver- the “thick” description (in the sense of Geertz sations and interviews in North Africa and Central 1983) of the interplay of these institutions. Europe with former participants and observers of On a global level, the governance of World sessions of the World Heritage Committee. In addi- Heritage consists of the interaction and reciprocal tion, this paper is also based on my own analyses of balance of several institutions. The most impor- many UNESCO documents (including conference tant decision-making body is the World Heritage documents). Committee which is composed of representatives Social scientists, as a result of their professional from 21 countries. The members of the Committee conditioning, tend to direct their attention in the are re-elected at regular intervals by the General research process towards conflicts, breaches, con- Assembly of the States Parties of the World Heritage tradictions and inconsistencies. This focusing on Convention on the sidelines of the UNESCO conflicts may be motivated by their particular so- General Assembly. The World Heritage Committee cial relevance, but may also be an important meth- makes decisions concerning the inscription of sites odological principle for qualitative social research- on the World Heritage List and the World Heritage ers, as is the case in this paper; for the underlying List in Danger, or their deletion. In addition, it can mechanisms and processes of a social interaction for instance urge national governments and local system are often more clearly revealed through con- authorities to implement corrective measures to flicts, breaches, contradictions and inconsistencies remedy certain deficiencies at World Heritage Sites, than through undisturbed normal routines. In this or it can provide financial or material aid or exper- way they can be more easily studied, despite the fact tise if requested. that action patterns and orientations in a conflict or The World Heritage Committee is mainly crisis may differ from the routine patterns (Willke advised by ICOMOS (International Council on 2006, 123). For this methodological reason, I will Monuments and Sites) and IUCN (International concentrate particularly in this paper on the conflic- Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural tive debates that took place at the 2006 session of Resources); the advisory role of these institutions the Committee, rather than on one the much more is anchored in the text of the Convention (see common conflict-free, or less conflict-loaded, de- UNESCO 1972, Art. 8, 3; Art. 13, 7). As part of bates, during which the World Heritage Committee the UNESCO administration, the UNESCO World earnestly and successfully strove to achieve opti- Heritage Centre acts as secretariat for the World mum protection for a World Heritage Site. 108 Vol. 63· No. 2

and behind them the observer groups (for instance representatives of other countries or NGOs), who as a rule have no right to speak (Photo 1). The roles ap- pear to be clearly distributed among the chairperson, committee members, UNESCO officials and advisory bodies; the time allowed to each speaker is narrowly limited and as a rule is two minutes for a statement by a delegation. Five whole minutes are allowed to the advisory bodies for oral presentation of a poten- tial new World Heritage Site and an evaluation of the nomination proposal from their own point of view. Photo 1: Arrangement of the 30th session of the World Her- In 2007 it was accepted that the ICOMOS representa- itage Committee in Vilnius (July 2006) tive needed ten minutes for the presentation of large and complex sites.In addition to the oral presenta- 4 Global World Heritage governance ob- tions, the delegates receive in advance written docu- served ments, which in the case of the evaluation of nomi- nation proposals consist of about six to ten pages of 4.1 The external framework text per site. As a rule such reports are followed by a draft decision prepared by the advisory bodies or Sessions of the World Heritage Committee last the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, which serves about a week and are highly ritualized and formal- as a basis for the discussion. The tight time frame ized. There is always a long agenda which has to be assumes that many decisions will be made by the got through within a very tight time frame. The con- Committee without any discussion, or after a short ference rooms are clearly zoned: in the middle of the discussion of only a few minutes, in other words that platform sits the chairperson, who is selected from the draft decision will be adopted largely unchanged. among the committee members, and next to him or On the other hand, as a body having sovereign con- her as a rule the Director of the UNESCO World trol over the World Heritage List and the everyday Heritage Centre; on either side of these two sit repre- business of World Heritage governance, it is part of sentatives of the advisory bodies and as a rule other the Committee’s self-image that it does not accept UNESCO officials, varying according to the agenda every draft decision without comment, but discusses items. In the rows in front of the platform sit the alternative proposals. If the discussion on one site delegations which are members of the Committee, lasts considerably longer than half an hour – as hap-

Fig. 2: Number of World Heritage Sites inscribed over time 2009 T. Schmitt: Global cultural governance. Decision-making concerning World Heritage between politics and science 109

Fig. 3: Number of participants at selected sessions of the World Heritage Committee Source: Own evaluation on the basis of the lists of participants (Cooperation: F. Schlatter) pened in 2006/2007 for the existing World Heritage out that a greater number of important sites can sites of Cologne Cathedral, Dresden Elbe Valley and thus enjoy the protection of the World Heritage Tipasa, Algeria, for instance – then this is a remark- Convention and the international community. In able exception and almost inevitably leads to modifi- view of the fact that the resources (staff, time, ma- cation of the time schedule. terial resources) available to the global actors in- Institutionally, global World Heritage govern- volved in UNESCO World Heritage governance, ance is shaped by the procedures and settings of in- including the Committee, remain fairly constant, ternational diplomacy; Titchen (1995, 3) speaks of a and since the number of sites is increasing by about “distinctive style of international heritage protection twenty or thirty every year, it is obvious that the diplomacy” which has developed since the entry into actors on the global level of World Heritage gov- force of the Convention. At first glance, global gov- ernance can pay less and less attention to any indi- ernance of the material artefacts of cultural diversity vidual site. is organized according to the rules of an emerging The number of participants at sessions of the global metaculture, of a world society in the sense of World Heritage Committee, including observers, the Stanford school (cf. Meyer 2005). has significantly increased in the 1990s and 2000s, From its beginning at the end of the 1970s up to and this has also changed the character of the ses- the present, World Heritage governance has under- sions. Around 1980 their number was less than 100; gone a transformation which can be aptly described today the number has levelled out at a total of 600 or as increasing professionalization, scientificization, 800 (Fig. 3). This increase in the number of partici- bureaucratization and also NGOization. In recent pants may be seen as the reflection of a new respect years, the number of World Heritage Sites has in- for international organizations and global forms of creased at the rate of about twenty to thirty per year governance, besides the special esteem in which the (Fig. 2). World Heritage List is held, and, in the case of the Critics sometimes argue that this will lead to NGOs, a widespread need to be linked with these the World Heritage List losing its exclusivity and its global institutions. Due to the rapid growth and in- immediate evidence; defenders of this policy point creasing ease and affordability of international air 110 Vol. 63· No. 2 travel, together with the availability of information 4.2 The key concept of outstanding universal on international conferences via the Internet, such value (o.u.v.) and the cultural geographies of conferences have become more easily accessible to World Heritage in the global arena potentially interested people – structural moments, in the sense defined byG iddens (1984), which have The World Heritage List is at the core of the effected considerable changes in the global govern- metacultural production of symbols for an emerg- ance of the World Heritage regime. The growing ing world society. Alois Riegl (1929, orig. 1903), a scientificization and professionalization of World theoretician of the preservation of monuments, was Heritage governance also finds expression in many aware avant la lettre of the socially constructed char- analyses carried out by the advisory bodies and the acter of cultural heritage and the manner in which UNESCO administration, which bear witness to an it is selected in accordance with specific present-day intensive self-observation of the international re- needs (cf. Wohlleben 1988, 27). According to the gime (cf. i.e. ICOMOS 2005). World Heritage Convention, monuments, landscapes There are noticeable differences among the and sites inscribed on the World Heritage List have participants in respect of their previous knowl- to meet the criterion of outstanding universal value edge, and sometimes also in respect of their in- (UNESCO 1972, Art. 11), a term which was obvi- terpretation of the key concepts and instruments ously chosen rather fortuitously during the genesis of the World Heritage Convention. The sessions of the Convention (cf. Titchen 1995). sometimes have a kind of pedagogical subtext Differing interpretations of key concepts in the which enlightens delegates about the concepts, World Heritage Convention can be observed in the norms and instruments they are expected to ap- Committee sessions and not just occasionally, for ply. This observation is in line with the assump- instance when newcomers among the delegates ex- tions of (Historical) Neo-Institutionalism, according to press surprising opinions. The two advisory bodies, which international institutions do not a priori re- IUCN (for natural heritage) and ICOMOS (for cul- flect the fixed preferences of national states, but on tural heritage), represent divergent positions with the contrary have a socializing effect and are thus regard to the key concept of outstanding universal able to change positions, preferences and identities value (Table 1); this dispute is obvious in the semi- of national state actors (cf. Risse 2003; Hall and public arena of the World Heritage Committee, but Taylor 1996). not in the “windows” publications on World Heritage

Table 1: Typology of the different methods of approach of the two advisory bodies IUCN and ICOMOS in evaluating the o.u.v. of World Heritage Sites.

IUCN ICOMOS Tends to adopt positions of empirical realism Tends towards social constructivism O.u.v. (*) of a site can be determined objectively. O.u.v. of a site is socially constructed. Perceptions of what has o. u. v. can vary over time. O.u.v. concerns only “global superlatives”. Sites to which o.u.v. is attributed must not necessar- ily be superlative. Otherwise this could mean that greater value is implicitly attributed to certain cul- tures than to others. Possible sites (such as mountain areas) are compared Possible sites (such as historic towns, sacred build- with other sites of the same type all over the world and ings, rock paintings) are as a rule compared with must pass the test of o.u.v. in comparison with them. other sites in the same “geocultural region” and must be outstanding in comparison with them. The maximum number of natural sites with o.u.v. is Since the evaluation of o.u.v. may be subject to limited. The World Heritage List has finality in the change, there is no limit to the maximum number area of natural heritage. of cultural sites with o. u. v. The World Heritage List has no inevitable finality. (*) o.u.v. = outstanding universal value Developed by the author after analysis of texts by ICOMOS and IUCN, in particular WHC-06/30.COM/INF.9 (2006). 2009 T. Schmitt: Global cultural governance. Decision-making concerning World Heritage between politics and science 111 for a broader public. According to the text of the the World Heritage List is a “metacultural produc- Convention, the attestation of outstanding universal tion” (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett 2004); as a prima- value (o. u. v.) is a necessary condition for the inscrip- rily non-intended side effect, the World Heritage tion of a site on the World Heritage List (UNESCO regime produces a global canonization of the herit- 1972, Art. 11,2). IUCN’s position, which is based on age of mankind. For the Greco-French philosopher a rather naïve kind of empirical realism, obviously Cornelius Castoriadis, attempting to establish a regards outstanding universal value as an inherent collective identity has always been a self-imposed quality of properties. ICOMOS’ official position can task in every form of society (Castoriadis 1984; be classified as social constructivism. These differ- cf. also Bonacker 2008, 35). The implementation ent positions reflect not only the different subject of the World Heritage Convention of 1972 is clearly areas of the advisory bodies (natural vs. cultural her- seen as being part of an emerging world society’s itage), but also the different socializations of their attempt at self-affirmation and the establishment of members in different research cultures. In practice, a collective identity, even if this self-affirmation was however, representatives of ICOMOS seem to adopt not the original aim of the Convention. By identi- a realistic position which can be seen in formulations fying cultural “hotspots” and ”deserts”, the World such as “ICOMOS has no doubt about the site’s o. Heritage regime implicitly produces a global cultural u. v.” These different approaches to the interpreta- geography, or at least two competing global cultural tion of key concepts, such as outstanding universal geographies: in UNESCO’s flagship publications, value, are apparently not detrimental to the success such as World Heritage, which cultivate the image of of World Heritage governance. fascinating World Heritage Sites, an obvious effort The objective of the World Heritage regime is made to emphasize the geographical, cultural and is to protect cultural and natural heritage sites of ecological diversity of the sites represented on the list “outstanding universal value”. At the same time, and thus of the planet Earth as a whole. However,

Fig. 4: A UNESCO map of World Heritage sites: Eurocentrism versus cultural diversity While the distribution of World Heritage sites is clearly biased in favour of Europe, most of the pictures adorning this official UNESCO map are of non-European sites and thus in line with UNESCO’s principles of the equality of cultures and cultural diversity. Reproduced with kind permission of UNESCO © UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 112 Vol. 63· No. 2

Fig. 5: Economy as a factor in the “production” of World Heritage? This chart relates the World Heritage sites of a country to its Gross domestic product . The superior resources of cultural bureaucra- cies in countries with a high GNP is one of the reasons for the different numbers of World Heritage sites in different countries. Own enquiry 2007, Cooperation: F. Schlatter. Source: Number of heritage sites: www.unesco.org, download on 09/15/2007. – Gross domestic product (GDP, in current prices [Billion US$]): World Economic Outlook Database for April 2007; www.imf.org; Download on 09/25/2007. a global World Heritage map shows a quantitative needs to be corrected. It is also in opposition to domination of European sites. In figure 4, an offi- the objectives and efforts of UNESCO to promote cial UNESCO map showing clearly that the majority cultural diversity and a dialogue among civiliza- of sites are in Europe, the map itself is framed by tions. The Global Strategy for a Balanced, Representative pictures that are mainly of non-European sites. The and Credible World Heritage List, adopted in 1994, is World Heritage Convention thus implicitly produc- aimed at increasing the number of nominations es two different cultural geographies, one of plan- from developing countries, and implicitly at reduc- etary cultural diversity and the other of European ing those from European countries. Since 2006, cultural dominance. Now how can this European the World Heritage Committee has applied a rule dominance in the metacultural production of World which serves this aim, limiting new nominations Heritage be explained? World Heritage is “pro- for the World Heritage List to a maximum of two duced” through the interplay of local, national and per country in any one year (of which only one can global actors and institutions. Europe’s quantitative be a ”cultural” site) (cf. Operational Guidelines dominance in respect of World Heritage Sites is at 2005, Art. 61). This restriction is an attempt to bal- least partly a result of the different conditions of pro- ance the better production conditions on the na- duction on the national level. It reflects the greater tional level in European countries, and to contrib- resources available for the administration of culture ute in the long term to a World Heritage map more in economically strong (and therefore European) in line with UNESCO’s values and principles. This countries (Fig. 5). It is easier for these countries to regulation is thus an example of cultural govern- prepare nomination dossiers for the World Heritage ance par excellence. List, which today have to meet very complex require- The global institutions of World Heritage gov- ments. On the other hand, the European dominance ernance try to ensure that nominations by national can in part be explained by the Eurocentric cultural states are not just left to chance and to the efforts concept of the World Heritage List, which tends to of national actors; they seek to influence national attach most importance to architectural monuments decisions through the instruments of tentative lists (cf. Rössler 1995, 345). It is striking in this respect and thematic studies, for instance by the advisory that a large number of sites outside Europe are con- bodies (cf. ICOMOS 2005). Today a considerable nected with European colonial history. number of newly inscribed cultural heritage sites Within UNESCO, in many of the (non-Euro- cannot be classified using the traditional catego- pean) member states and in concreto in the debates ries of high culture. An example from the 2006 of the World Heritage Committee, Europe’s quan- session of the Committee is the inscription of titative dominance is perceived as a problem which Aapravasi Ghat in Mauritius, a site associated with 2009 T. Schmitt: Global cultural governance. Decision-making concerning World Heritage between politics and science 113 the beginning of the modern indentured-labour it was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in diaspora. Between 1834 and 1920, around 500,000 Danger, after a number of alleged problems were Indians arrived in the harbour of Port Louis to observed in spring 2002 by two officials sent by the work as indentured labourers in the sugar planta- UNESCO World Heritage Centre. The expert mis- tions of Mauritius. However, the inscription of the sion reported among other things “alarming acts site was not undisputed within the global institu- of vandalism”, damage due to vegetation and ero- tions of World Heritage governance: ICOMOS as sion, illegally constructed houses, and general pres- the responsible advisory body proposed that the sure of urban development from the neighbouring Committee should defer the nomination, mainly modern town (cf. WHC-06/30.COM/7A, 66). The because of the lack of integrity and authenticity of Algerian ministry of culture has in the meantime the surviving buildings. ICOMOS also implicitly implemented corrective measures to remedy these proposed that it would be better to look for other real or alleged problems. In March 2006, another sites with more suitable buildings to serve as a mission was sent by UNESCO and ICOMOS to monument to global indentured labour (ICOMOS Tipasa at the request of the Committee. The re- 2006, 25-26). In the case of this nomination, it was port by this mission suggested that Tipasa could particularly countries in the “South” (Madagascar, be removed from the “danger list”. The draft deci- Kenya, Benin, Morocco, India, and Tunisia) that sion for the delegates in Vilnius on the other hand supported inscription of the site, and which in the proposed that Tipasa should remain on the List end won the day. They argued among other things of World Heritage in Danger, and demanded that that the political and symbolic meaning of a site the Algerian authorities should implement further in memory of indentured labour (and indirectly of measures and meet the agreed benchmarks, before slavery) was the important factor. The leader of Tipasa could be removed from the danger list. the Norwegian delegation, on the other hand, ar- In the approximately thirty years of work of the gued that “the site was of great importance”, but World Heritage Committee, the informal custom he “had the impression that the Convention (…) has become established (even if not always observed) (was) not in focus” (WHC-06/30.COM/INF.19, that decisions concerning the World Heritage List 176). The inscription of the site despite its rather and the World Heritage List in Danger should be unspectacular buildings can be seen as a result arrived at by consensus if possible. of a desire to develop a global memory culture Right from the beginning of the discussion on in respect of historical social distortions and to Tipasa, however, it became clear that there were dif- satisfy the need for representation of countries in ferences in the views of individual delegations which the “South”. In this case, it can be said that the it would be difficult to resolve on a consensual basis. countries of the “South” won against those of the After a presentation by the World Heritage Centre ”North” – according to an interpretative scheme and remarks by ICOMOS, with their negative votes, of the meeting (see below) – and against impor- Morocco and Mauritius opened the discussion from tant financial backers of UNESCO. In the end, the the side of the Committee. They requested that Tipasa Aaparavasi Ghat site benefited from the preced- should be removed from the List of World Heritage ing hard discussions at the 2006 session on the in Danger, as desired by Algeria, arguing that Algeria World Heritage site of Tipasa, Algeria, which we had implemented corrective measures.1) This was will therefore examine in more detail in this pa- opposed by Norway and the USA: they congratu- per. (Table 1) lated the Algerian government for its plans and for the measures carried out so far. But they asked if the Committee should make decisions purely on the basis 4.3 A crucial event: the discussion in Vilnius of the government’s good intentions and of its suc- in respect of Tipasa cess in meeting some, but not all, of the benchmarks. They argued that the Committee must be as consist- The World Heritage site of Tipasa is located on ent as possible in its decision-making. The delegate the Mediterranean coast of Algeria, approximately 70 km west of Algiers. The central feature of the 1) site is the remains of a Roman town, with build- The citation of the speeches is based on my own hand- written notes which I compared with the official records of ings that were constructed mainly in the fourth the meeting. Not all the aspects which I found relevant for my and fifth centuries A.D. The site of Tipasa was in- own interpretation were included in the official records, cf. scribed on the World Heritage List in 1982; in 2002 WHC-06/30.COM/INF.19 (2006). 114 Vol. 63· No. 2 from Kenya later commented that the Committee ment of these cases. This observation does not fit members were present in order to discuss and make with a simplistic interpretation of the division in decisions. If it was only a matter of meeting bench- the Committee as the expression of a north-south marks, they could communicate by e-mail and would divide. On the other hand, the permanent reference not need to meet. The aim of the members was to help to benchmarks by delegations from Anglo-Saxon the site, and therefore he wished to plead that the site countries and countries with similar research cul- be taken off the List of World Heritage in Danger. If tures (the USA and Canada, but also Norway and the situation did not improve, the site could always be the Netherlands) inevitably recalled Galtung’s (1988 reinscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger [orig.: 1966], 45) ideal-typical sketch of the essential later on. The Indian delegate introduced another per- features of Anglo-Saxon intellectual style. In an al- spective into the discussion: in developing countries most parodistical manner, Galtung quoted a typical it is considered a stigma to have a site on the List of question asked by Anglo-Saxon academics on hear- World Heritage in Danger, for this gives the impres- ing of a new thesis: How do you operationalize it? Even sion that the ministry responsible is unable to protect if World Heritage governance is basically organized its country’s cultural heritage. These are just a few in accordance with the homogenizing principles of typical arguments expressed during the discussion, “Western” (in a historical sense) modernity, it can which lasted for over 105 minutes and which at times still be the scene of clashes between different evalu- took on the character of a tribunal, with Algeria as the ation schemes and intellectual styles. accused party and ICOMOS as the expert consultant For Max Weber the ideal type is a mental con- of the opposing party. struction which condenses and frequently exagger- ates certain aspects of the “empirical world” (see North-south divide or clash of intellectual styles? for instance Müller 2007, 64-66). In this sense, we could oppose the ideal-typical figures of two In 2006 in Vilnius disputes arose over the ques- delegates, one of whom pays rigorous attention to tion of whether the World Heritage site of Tipasa whether certain benchmarks and criteria are met, was in danger or not; in the opinion of observers while the other wishes to solve all problems by agree- and participants who had attended sessions of the ing with the national delegations, and in addition is Committee for many years, such disputes had nev- prepared to attribute outstanding universal value to er arisen before. The division was interpreted by at practically all newly proposed sites that have a fa- least some of the actors involved as a north-south vourable dossier, and to inscribe them without delay confrontation that became endowed with its own on the World Heritage List. However, the existence reality through this conceptualization. The dividing of divergent attitudes in the Committee in respect line was emphasized discursively in the Committee of implementing the concept of World Heritage, and by the leader of the Indian delegation, who spoke even in respect of its basic philosophy, need not nec- about the differences between developed and de- essarily be detrimental to the success of the World veloping countries, marked India communicatively Heritage Convention. On the contrary, it would be as a “southern country”, and opposed the southern much worse for the inherent purpose of the World countries, with their typical, common problems and Heritage concept, if any one of these two ideal types approaches, to the northern countries. were to become dominant in the Committee. Table But did the north-south division have a reality 2 shows different positions and approaches that can of its own beyond its discursive conceptualization? be observed in the Committee. A constructive typol- Indeed, most of the “northern” countries argued ogy, but not an ideal type in Weber’s sense, is pro- against the Algerian position, while the “southern” posed by the loose attribution of delegations to these countries tended to support Algeria. In my interpre- different positions. tation, however, this confrontation was based less on a north-south divide than on a clash of different intellectual styles and approaches in the Committee. 4.4 Far-fetched facts: information flows in mul- Even in the case of sites in the “North” (such as tilevel governance systems Cologne Cathedral), the delegates from develop- ing countries in the “South” were generally more The discussion on Tipasa clearly revealed a fun- appreciative of the difficulties facing local and na- damental problem in World Heritage governance: tional authorities. And at least some of the “north- the delegates have to make important decisions in ern” delegations were more severe in their judge- respect of places which most of them have never 2009 T. Schmitt: Global cultural governance. Decision-making concerning World Heritage between politics and science 115

Table 2: Overview of the different attitudes and intellectual styles of various delegations to the World Heritage Committee at the 30th and 31st sessions (2006 and 2007), according to the author’s own observations This overview includes mainly those delegations that took part in the discussion sufficiently frequently and whose statements permit their classification in this (deliberately) polarizing overview typical of typical of delegation delegation strong emphasis on diplo- India, Morocco Netherlands, interested in substantive issues matic rules Norway rather than in diplomatic rules and forms “harder” discussion India, USA Kenya (2006, less so “softer” discussion style tends style based on substan- Norway in 2007), Canada, more towards rapprochement tive positions (Tunisia) emphasis on material Norway, USA Morocco, India, emphasis on symbolic, intangible and physical aspects of Tunisia, Benin aspects of sites sites emphasis on strict cri- USA, Norway, India, Tunisia low criteria for meeting the re- teria for meeting the re- (Netherlands) quirement of outstanding uni- quirement of outstand- versal value in the case of new ing universal value in the inscriptions case of new inscriptions emphasis on strict crite- Norway, Canada, India, Tunisia relatively low criteria for com- ria for complying with USA, plying with norms for the pro- norms for the protection Netherlands tection of cultural and natural of cultural and natural heritage and the meeting of heritage and the meet- “benchmarks” ing of “benchmarks” seen. An inspection of the locality, obligatory for (1) The reports of the missions sent in 2002 and many normal courts dealing with issues relating to 2006, prepared by different experts from UNESCO the building regulations, would be practicable for the and ICOMOS, gave different accounts of the situ- Committee only in very rare cases, due to the great ation in Tipasa, so divergent that the discrepancy distances involved and in view of the fact that some- could scarcely be explained by the different time of thing like a hundred World Heritage Sites and nomi- the missions only. This leads to the question as to nations have to be discussed at each session of the which report can be considered as more credible, and Committee. The delegates have to read the State of in general the question as to how this enormous dis- Conservation reports prepared by the advisory bod- crepancy can be explained. ies and the World Heritage Centre, which are com- (2) The State of Conservation report given to the plemented in the oral presentation by PowerPoint delegates was a kind of synthesis of the two reports. slides; in some cases, objections presented briefly by But even where it reproduced the report of the 2006 the national government, and in exceptional cases mission, its style was noticeably more negative and it also by NGOs, paint a picture that contrasts with failed to mention a number of “exonerating” details the description given by the advisory bodies and the contained in the 2006 report. World Heritage Centre. On the basis of these “weit However, most of the delegates did not seem to hergeholte Fakten”, far-fetched facts (cf. Rottenburg be aware of this discrepancy, since they had obvi- 2002), the delegates have to arrive at a decision. ously only seen the explicit State of Conservation re- In the case of Tipasa, the delegates in Vilnius port to the delegates, and not the report of the 2006 were given a four-page State of Conservation report mission by Beschaouch and Braun, which was not prepared by ICOMOS. This report was based on the distributed automatically to the delegates, and which reports of two missions sent by UNESCO in 2002 moreover was available only in French. The supposed and 2006. The overall situation in respect of the re- north-south divide in the Committee in Vilnius was ports can be summed up as follows: largely due to differences in the information received 116 Vol. 63· No. 2 by the delegations, and perhaps also due to the lack tainly not wish to discredit the recent decisions of of knowledge of French of some delegates. the Committee in respect of German sites (Cologne The different messages conveyed by the report Cathedral, Dresden Elbe Valley), for instance, which for the delegates and the report by the mission could in my opinion were well prepared. basically be explained as an instance of the phenom- enon which in terms of the communication process might be called the Chinese-whispers effect, after the 4.5 The “political diplomacy” factor in sessions old children’s game: if information is passed along of the Committee and the global level of a chain of stations without the sender being able to World Heritage governance check whether the information is being passed on correctly, the message may undergo alteration, usu- A commonly heard criticism of the World ally quite unconsciously, at each station and will Heritage List is that decisions concerning the inscrip- have changed by the time it reaches the addressee. tion of new sites are to a high degree politically mo- Awareness of this phenomenon is not new in the so- tivated. The concept of “political” (unfortunately) cial sciences and communications, but the example has a rather pejorative connotation in this context. A of Tipasa shows that it has a bearing on the question political decision is implicitly understood as the op- of the seriousness of World Heritage governance. posite of a decision made according to “factual”, “sci- If we read the Beschaouch and Braun (2006) entific”, or perhaps even “objective” criteria, on the report more carefully, the Committee’s benchmark basis of expert reports, and as the result of a broad discussion collapses like a house of cards in this con- consensus, for instance among conservationists, ar- crete case. The benchmarks mentioned in the State chaeologists and ecologists. of Conservation report for the delegates related ex- The following attempt to investigate the role of plicitly to this report (“Benchmarks for corrective political diplomacy in World Heritage governance is measures […] as defined by the reactive follow-up not intended to transport these negative connotations mission in March 2006”). Yet here, too, there were of the “political” factor. Through the World Heritage far-reaching modifications: where the expert report Convention, the protection of World Heritage is en- for instance only asks that a time schedule for prepar- sured by the cooperation of international institutions ing a management plan be presented (Beschaouch and national states. That questions of political diplo- and Braun 2006, 13), the benchmarks in the report macy play a role in World Heritage governance is an to the delegates require that a complete management plan inevitable consequence of this construction. For how- be presented before Tipasa can be removed from ever “technical” international governance by regime the List of World Heritage in Danger. The delegates may be, it is still political and therefore contested by who, adopting the attitude of determined defend- definition (List 2007, 235). ers of World Heritage, vehemently demanded that “The policy of a country in the Committee de- Tipasa should meet all benchmarks, were presum- pends on who is representing it, whether conser- ably not aware of these discrepancies. This episode vationists or diplomats”, is for instance the view of raises the question of how suitable criteria (bench- Hans Caspary, who represented the Federal Republic marks, or other terms that have been preferred more of Germany in the Committee as delegate or ob- recently such as ‘desired state of conservation’, ‘cor- server for almost two decades.2) However, it is also rective measures’) are established within the frame- conceivable that stable patterns emerge in the long work of a complex multi-level governance system term, depending on the country in question, which like the World Heritage regime. will be reflected in the voting behaviour, interven- This episode serves as an example of how dif- tions and public positions of its delegates, regardless ficulties can arise in World Heritage governance of persons. in respect of making decisions concerning distant But what would be understood as extraneous po- places, when the local situation is not adequately litical factors? We can speak of extraneous political represented to the decision-making Committee. The influences when actors act in a way that is based nei- debate on Tipasa was selected for this reconstruc- ther on the needs of environmental and cultural con- tion because its conflictive potential offered a good servation, nor on the ideal of communicative action opportunity to analyse some of the mechanisms in- (in the sense proposed by Habermas), nor on the ac- volved in global governance of World Heritage. It should not be considered as being typical of the way 2) Conversation with Hans Caspary, July 2004 (from my the World Heritage Committee works. I would cer- own handwritten notes) 2009 T. Schmitt: Global cultural governance. Decision-making concerning World Heritage between politics and science 117 tors’ own personal interests. Such extraneous political The delegates feel integrated at least to some ex- influences might include efforts to raise national pres- tent in a network of mutual loyalties in respect of the tige, trying to please powerful states or countries with interests of other countries. The work of the World which “friendly relations” exist, or possibly trying to Heritage Committee, which is aimed at the globally damage the reputation of enemies, however these effective and scientifically-based protection of cul- may be defined. Are these the secret agendas of the tural and natural heritage, can nevertheless fulfil its World Heritage Committee? The above account sug- objectives, as long as (a) at least some delegations gests that this would be a very oversimplified view of succeed in evading the pressures exerted by such the work of the Committee. The opposite view would political loyalties, and (b) the loyalties are differently be that the World Heritage Committee is wholly de- distributed. Delegates, who bow to these pressures voted to serving the interests of the global commu- in some cases, have relative freedom to act in other nity and the conservation of cultural monuments and cases. Delegates with instructions from a lobby will natural sites. Since there is no such thing as the per- as a rule not want to push that issue through at all fect human institution, we can take as a provisional costs when it is contested by other delegates, for they working hypothesis that a reasonable assessment lies would otherwise risk losing their own standing in the somewhere in between. Committee. Another form of extraneous, but not undesirable, Reciprocal expectations and claims of national states political influence is when the forum of the World Heritage Committee is used to send modest signals At first glance, the discussion in the Committee of reconciliation, in cases where the fronts in a con- on Tipasa appeared to be strongly influenced by such flict have become hardened. This can be said to have extraneous political considerations. For instance, it happened, for instance, when in the discussion on the did not seem coincidental that Algeria’s two neigh- nomination of two castles in Syria dating from the bours, Morocco and Tunisia, supported the posi- time of the crusaders, the delegate from Israel as first tion of the Algerian delegation. This shows on the speaker expressed his full support for the nomination one hand that existing international conflicts, here (see also WHC-06/30.COM/INF.19, 186). in respect of the Western Sahara, may be ignored in the UNESCO context, and that the delegations are prepared to act cooperatively. In this concrete case, 4.6 Shaming and blaming and regime compli- however, the support given by Morocco and Tunisia ance: function and perceptions of the Danger could also be interpreted as an expression of their su- List perior knowledge, as outlined above. But what is the role generally played by diplo- The List of World Heritage in Danger is a key matic considerations in the Committee? During the instrument in the World Heritage regime in order to 2006 session of the Committee, I was told the follow- improve compliance with regime norms by the States ing by a delegate from a developing country: “I am Parties. In the official UNESCO discourse, the List expected to defend the other countries of the South of World Heritage in Danger is an effective instru- and especially the countries [in our group] in the ment for mobilizing and organizing national atten- Committee. I defended the case of country A* today, tion and action, as well as international support, for although – between you and me – I don’t think it is the protection of an endangered site (cf. UNESCO a good case. If I don’t do this, they will come to me 1972, Art. 11). Delegates from various countries (in afterwards and ask why didn’t you speak up. I don’t particular Norway and Canada) have several times think the way countries are divided into groups is articulated in the Committee a view of the List that very helpful.”3) Such action by delegates, motivated by conforms to this interpretation. But as shown by the foreign relations and geopolitical considerations, and discussion on Tipasa, the value of the List of World perhaps also by personal interests, is not restricted to Heritage in Danger is a subject of dispute among the developing countries, as demonstrated in 2006 by the delegates in the Committee – and not only among the committed and well-informed support of Spain for affected actors on the local level (see also Schmitt and the nomination of the French Cevennes (which in the Schweitzer 2007). It must be taken into account that end was unsuccessful). for many national delegations and ministries of cul- ture it makes a considerable difference whether one of 3) Quoted from my own notes which were written down their sites is on the List of World Heritage in Danger after the conversation. or not. The labelling of a site as World Heritage in 118 Vol. 63· No. 2

Danger creates its own reality, and the effectiveness of The delegate answered: Yes, but in respect of Site this instrument is largely due to exactly this circum- A* things have already been set in motion (under stance. Public blaming and shaming is a weak, but pressure from UNESCO and its resolutions). Now well established mechanism for achieving compliance the government has reacted, and so inscription of the in international regimes (cf. List 2007, 238). site on the List of World Heritage in Danger should The representatives of the Algerian government be prevented. appeared to be personally unhappy about the course taken by the discussion on Tipasa in the Committee. This text makes clear that inscription on a List For them it was an important political goal to get of World Heritage in Danger definitely has nega- Tipasa taken off the List of World Heritage in Danger tive connotations, so that the national ministry of after six years. Due to its relative proximity to the culture is anxious to prevent one of its sites from capital, Tipasa is a kind of visiting card for the coun- being inscribed on the list. Inscription on this list try; cultural programmes for foreign delegations often would mean trouble for the national ministry, raise include a visit to Tipasa. This episode clearly shows questions in the country, and affect the country’s in- the special, not unproblematic “sandwich” position ternational reputation. On the other hand, a funda- of actors on the intermediary level of a global govern- mentally positive value is implicitly attributed to the ance system: through their presence for many years existence of the instrument of the List of World Heritage in the arenas of the global level, they have to a large in Danger in this concrete case. Just the threat that a degree internalized the regime norms and aims, but site might be inscribed on the List of World Heritage at the same time their actions must take into account in Danger was enough to “set things in motion”, in the interests of other actors, on both the national and other words to make the government follow a more local levels. In addition, even in a centralistic state resolute policy to protect the site. When the site had like Algeria, the ability to “govern downwards” is reached a point that was, so to speak, just below in- not unlimited for national actors (for a general dis- scription on the List of World Heritage in Danger, cussion, see List 2007, 232). Our reconstruction of this was a situation which, at least in this concrete the debate on Tipasa has made clear that the List of case, permitted the national cultural bureaucracy and World Heritage in Danger is a sensitive instrument the local conservation managers to exert pressure on within the framework of World Heritage governance. other local and regional actors to take active meas- In Vilnius, it was the leader of the Indian delegation ures to protect the site. Such a mechanism can work who introduced into the discussion a pejorative view as long as national and/or local actors are willing to of the List of World Heritage in Danger, describing recognize the moral authority, or at least the potential it as a stigma, and this attitude was then taken up by power to exert pressure, of UNESCO and the World other delegations. Heritage Committee, as representatives of the inter- The following text was recorded following a con- national community. versation with a delegate from a developing country Apart from deletion of a site from the World at the session of the World Heritage Committee in Heritage List (which brings to an end the special rela- Vilnius: tion between the site and UNESCO), inscription on the World Heritage List in Danger is the most se- From field journal (Vilnius 2006) – conversation with vere measure that can be taken in order to achieve Delegate A’: regime compliance by national and local authorities. The delegate told me that one of the tasks en- Different interpretations of the severity of blaming trusted to him by his own government this time was and shaming influence perceptions of this instrument to prevent Site A* from being inscribed on the List of on the part of national authorities and delegates in the World Heritage in Danger. Committee. He said the local conservation manager (…) had told him that he wouldn’t mind if the Site were in- scribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, since 5 Conclusions: cultural governance of World this would help to set things in motion, but the minis- Heritage try wanted to prevent this. I asked him about his personal opinion: surely The World Heritage regime is a mayor example inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger for the multi-level governance of cultural artefacts needn’t necessarily be seen as a disgrace, as the Indian and the metacultural production of a global offer delegate had put it. for identification in an emerging World Society. The 2009 T. Schmitt: Global cultural governance. Decision-making concerning World Heritage between politics and science 119 governance of World Heritage and this metacultur- The above-mentioned long-term developments al production are both conducted by scientific and in World Heritage governance include the deci- political considerations and reflect different condi- sion made in 1992 to introduce cultural landscapes tions, possibilities and constraints on the local, na- among the UNESCO World Heritage categories, tional, and global governance scale. If we consider and the greater importance attached to trans-border the global scale, we can distinguish an “everyday” sites (such as the Roman Limes) or transnational and a “mid-term” or “long-term” governance by the theme routes. Their inclusion represents a fus- World Heritage regime, including modifications to ing of classical ideas on the protection of cultural its key concepts. and natural heritage with the founding principle of The “everyday” governance is mainly concerned UNESCO to promote international understanding with updating the World Heritage List and the List of via culture. In all these developments, too, the formal World Heritage in Danger and with interventions in sovereign control of the World Heritage Committee respect of the management of World Heritage Sites. remains unaffected – at least as long as the General This area of World Heritage governance is regulated Assembly of States Parties, which has even greater by the text of the Convention (UNESCO 1972) and international legitimacy, does not claim competence the current OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES (2005). over these matters. Notwithstanding the formal On this level, the World Heritage Committee seems sovereignty of both bodies, ideas in this field are de- to have undisputed sovereign power. But on a clos- veloped in open cooperation between the UNESCO er look, it is obvious that the global scale of World administration, the advisory bodies, the Committee Heritage is governed by a system of checks and bal- and the General Assembly, and in some cases other ances between the Committee, the UNESCO admin- cooperation partners, such as “site managers” at istration and the advisory bodies. The Committee different World Heritage Sites or national experts. does not always have to follow their advice, but ac- Within this long-term perspective of global World cording to the unwritten rules of the governance Heritage governance, the UNESCO administration system, the Committee should not snub the advisory and the advisory bodies have a considerable influ- bodies unduly. According to its formal and informal ence, in part due to their greater staff continuity, rules, the global level of World Heritage is consti- while the members of the Committee are regularly tuted neither as an expertocracy nor as unrestricted replaced. In these cases the procedures of negotia- rule by diplomats. Unlike in the classical concept of tion and concept development are thus much more the separation of powers, there is no judicative in- open, and not processually determined. stance or instance for appeal against decisions made The concept of outstanding universal value has by the Committee. undergone implicit modifications in its more than While the World Heritage List is a universal glo- thirty years of existence, as a result of the need to bal production based on the artefacts of different respect the List’s claim of serving the world soci- cultural traditions, the global governance of World ety. The List now includes not only “classical” high Heritage shows that different intellectual styles culture or archaeological sites, but also an increas- play a remarkable role in the negotiations of the ing number of sites connected with “indigenous” Committee as an institution of an emerging world cultures, twentieth century architecture, the his- society. The specific, strongly regulated setting of tory of technology, disasters of civilization (such as the World Heritage Committee, in accordance with Auschwitz concentration camp), and finally sites of global an international diplomatic culture, impedes the social history. Such long-term developments change constructive management of conflicts as in the case the sense and meaning of outstanding universal of the debate on Tipasa. In order to resolve conflicts value, and of the canon of material artefacts of a à la Tipasa constructively, the Committee would global memory culture; they follow general global need a further decision-making mode in which the discourses and reinforce such trends with the power normal restrictions do not apply and in which one of UNESCO as a gentle hegemon. In the relevant thing above all would be available: time. Time for decision-making bodies, such developments are detailed presentation of arguments, for hearing all not always undisputed, as seen in the discussion on parties, for reading and studying original documents Aapravasi Ghat. At the same time the establishment (not just condensed State of Conservation reports), of the World Heritage regime points to the existence original plans and collections of photographs (and of an idealistic moment in international politics in not just a didactic selection of PowerPoint slides), the postulation of a common cultural and natural perhaps even for discussions in small groups. heritage of mankind. 120 Vol. 63· No. 2

Acknowledgements Cox, R. W. and Jacobson, H. K. (eds.) (1973): The anatomy of influence. Decision making in international organiza- The author is grateful to the collaborative research tion. New Haven. centre Local Action in Africa in the Context of Clobal Influences Di Giovine, M. (2009): The Heritage-Scape. Lanham. at the University of Bayreuth, and the German Research Galtung, J. (1988, orig. 1966): Methodology, epistemology and Foundation (DFG) for their financial support. I would cosmology. In: Galtung, J.: Methodology and develop- like to thank all my interview partners in Vilnius, ment. Essays in methodology III. Copenhagen, 15–67. Christchurch, Paris, in Germany, Morocco and Algeria. – (1996): Peace with peaceful means. London. My thanks go to Hans-Georg Bohle and the anonymous Geertz, C. (1983, orig. 1973): ������������������������������Dichte Beschreibung. Bemerkun- referees from “Erdkunde” for their helpful remarks con- gen zu einer deutenden Theorie von Kultur. In: Geertz, C.: cerning this paper. Finally, the author and the editors Dichte Beschreibung. Beiträge zum Verstehen kultureller of Erdkunde are grateful to UNESCO World Heritage Systeme. Frankfurt a.M., 7–43. Centre for the generous provision of the recent edition of Giddens, A. (1984): The constitution of society. Outline of the the World Heritage map to the readership of Erdkunde. theory of structuration. Cambridge. Goffmann, E. (1969, orig. 1959): Wir alle spielen Theater. Die Selbstdarstellungen im Alltag. Munich. References Graham, B.; Ashworth, G. J. and Tunbridge J. E. (2000): A geography of heritage. Power, culture and economy. Lon- Adorno, T. W. (1972, orig. 1960): Kultur und Verwaltung. don. In: Adorno, T. W.: Soziologische Schriften I (= Gesam- Hall, P. A. and Taylor, R. C. R. (1996): Political science and melte Schriften 8). Frankfurt a.M., 122–146. the three new institutionalisms. In: Political Studies 44 (5), Albert, M.-T. and Gauer-Lietz, S. (eds.) (2006): Perspekti- 936–957. ven des Welterbes. Constructing World Heritage. Fran- Hall, S. (1997): The centrality of culture. In: Thompson, K. (ed.) kfurt a.M. (1997): Media and cultural regulation. London, 207–238. Augé, M. (1992): Non lieux. Introduction à une anthropolo- Horkheimer, M. and Adorno, T. W. (1969, orig. 1947): Dialek�������- gie de la surmodernité. Paris. tik der Aufklärung. Frankfurt a.M. Benz, A. (2007): Multilevel governance. In: Benz, A.; Lütz ICOMOS (2005): The World Heritage List. Filling the gaps – an S.; Schimank, U. and Simonis, G. (eds.): Handbuch action plan for the future. Monuments and sites XII. Paris. Governance. Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische ICOMOS (2006): UNESCO. World Heritage Convention. Anwendungsfelder. Wiesbaden, 297–310. World Heritage Committee. 30th ordinary session July 2006. Beschauouch, A. and Braun, J.-P. (2006): Rapport de mis- Evaluation of cultural properties. Prepared by the Council sion conjointe Centre du Patrimoine Mondial – ICO- on Monuments and Sites (WHC-06/30.COM/INF.8B2). MOS sur le site de Tipasa (Algérie), UNESCO – ICO- Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, B. (2004): Intangible heritage as me- MOS, March 2006. Paris. tacultural production. In: museum international 56 (1–2), Blatter, J. K.; Janning, F. and Wagemann, C. (2007): Qua- 52–65. litative Politikanalyse. Wiesbaden. Lippuner, R. (2005): Reflexive Sozialgeographie. In: Geographi- Bonacker, T. (2008): Gesellschaft. Warum die Einheit sche Zeitschrift 93 (3), 135-147. der Gesellschaft aufgehoben wird. In: Moebius, S. and List, M. (2007): Regimetheorie. In: Benz, A.; Lütz, S.; Schimank, Reckwitz, A. (eds.) (2008): Poststrukturalistische Sozi- U. and Simonis, G. (eds.) Handbuch Governance. Theore- alwissenschaften. Frankfurt a.M., 27–42. tische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder. Campbell, D. (2003): Cultural governance and picto- Wiesbaden, 227–239. rial resistance: reflections on the imaging of war. Meyer, J. W. (2005): Weltkultur. Wie die westlichen Prinzipien In: Review of International Studies 29, 57–73. die Welt durchdringen. Frankfurt a.M. Doi:10.1017/S0260210503005977 Müller, H.-P. (2007): Max Weber. Eine Einführung in sein Cappai, G. (2001): Kultur aus soziologischer Perspektive. In: Werk. Köln. Appelsmeyer, H. and Billmann-Mahecha, E. (2001): OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES (2005): Operational guideli- Kulturwissenschaft. Felder einer prozeßorientierten nes for the implementation of the World Heritage Conven- wissenschaftlichen Praxis. Weilerswist, 54–96 tion. WHC. 05/2. UNESCO. Paris. Castoriadis, C. (1984): Gesellschaft als imaginäre Institution. Reckwitz, A. (2004): Die Kontingenzperspektive der ‚Kultur’. Entwurf einer politischen Philosophie. Frankfurt a.M. Kulturbegriffe, Kulturtheorien und das kulturwissenschaft- Choay, F. (1997, orig. 1992): Das architektonische Erbe, eine liche Forschungsprogramm. In: Jaeger, F. and Rüsen, J. Allegorie. Geschichte und Theorie der Baudenkmale. (eds.): Handbuch der Kulturwissenschaften 3: Themen und Wiesbaden. Tendenzen. Stuttgart, 1–33. 2009 T. Schmitt: Global cultural governance. Decision-making concerning World Heritage between politics and science 121

Riegl, A. (1929, orig. 1903): Der moderne Denkmalkultus, sein Titchen, S. (1995): On the construction of outstanding Wesen und seine Entstehung. In: Riegl, A.: Gesammelte universal value. UNESCO’s World Heritage Conven- Aufsätze. Augsburg, 144–193. tion (Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cul- Risse, T. (2003): Konstruktivismus,������������������������������������������� Rationalismus und Theori- tural and Natural Heritage, 1972) and the identification en Internationaler Beziehungen – warum empirisch nichts and assessment of cultural places for inclusion in the so heiß gegessen wird, wie es theoretisch gekocht wird. In: World Heritage List. Unpubl. PhD Thesis. Canberra. Hellmann, G.; Wolf, K.-D. and Zürn, M. (eds.): Die neuen UNESCO (1972): Convention for the protection of the internationalen Beziehungen. Forschungsgegenstand und world cultural and natural heritage. Paris. Perspektiven in Deutschland. Baden-Baden, 99–132. Werlen, B. (2003): Kulturgeographie und kulturtheokulturtheo-- Rosenau, J. N. (1992): Governance, order and change in world retische Wende. In: Gebhardt, H.; Reuber, P. and politics. In: Rosenau, J. N. and Czempiel, E.-O. (eds.): Gov- Wolkersdorfer, G. (eds.): Kulturgeographie. Aktu- ernance without government: order and change in world elle Ansätze und Entwicklungen. Heidelberg, 251– politics. Cambridge, 1–29. 268. Rössler, M. (1995): Neue Perspektiven für den Schutz von WHC-06/30.COM/7A (2006): World Heritage Commit- Kulturlandschaften. Kultur und Natur im Rahmen der tee. Thirtieth Session. 7A. State of conservation re- Welterbekonvention. In: Geographische Rundschau 47 (6), port of the properties inscribed on the List of World 333–347. Heritage in Danger. Rottenburg, R. (2002): Weit hergeholte Fakten. Eine Parabel WHC-06/30.COM/INF.19 (2006): World Heritage Com- der Entwicklungshilfe. Stuttgart. mittee. Thirtieth Session. Vilnius, Lithuania. Draft Schmitt, T. (2008): The UNESCO concept of safeguarding summary report. Paris. intangible cultural heritage: its background and Marrrakchi WHC-06/30.COM/INF.9 (2006): World Heritage Com- roots. In: The International Journal of Heritage Studies 14 mittee. Thirtieth Session. Joint ICOMOS-IUCN paper (2), 95–111. and papers by ICOMOS and IUCN on the application Schmitt, T. and Schweitzer, A. (2007): Welterbe oder Stadt- of the concept of outstanding universal value. Paris. entwicklung in Gefahr? Zu deutschen Debatten und zur Willke, H. (2006): Global governance. Bielefeld. global-lokalen Governanz von UNESCO-Welterbestätten Wohlleben, M. (1988): Vorwort. In: Conrads, U. (ed.): am Beispiel des Kölner Doms. In: Berichte zur deutschen Georg Dehio. Alois Riegel. Konservieren, nicht res- Landeskunde 81 (4), 329–352. taurieren. Braunschweig, 7–33. Shapiro, M. J. (2004): Methods and nations: cultural governance Young, O. R. (1997): Rights, rules and resources in world and the indigenous subject. New York. affairs. In: Young, O. R. (ed.) (1997): Global govern- Thompson, K. (ed.) (1997): Media and Cultural Regulation. Lon- ance. Drawing insights from the environmental expe- don. rience. Cambridge MA., London, 1–23.

Author

Dr. Thomas Schmitt University of Bonn Department of Geography Meckenheimer Allee 166 53115 Bonn [email protected]