INTERNAtiONAL COUNcil ON MONUMENTS AND SitES CONSEil INTERNAtiONAL DES MONUMENTS ET DES SitES CONSEJO INTERNAciONAL DE MONUMENTOS Y SitiOS мЕждународный совЕт по вопросам памятников и достопримЕчатЕльных мЕст The World Heritage List What is OUV? Defining the Outstanding Universal Value of Cultural World Heritage Properties An ICOMOS study compiled by Jukka Jokilehto, with contributions from Christina Cameron, Michel Parent and Michael Petzet MONUMENTS AND SitES MONUMENTS ET SitES MONUMENTOS Y SitiOS XVI Monuments and Sites / Monuments et Sites / Monumentos y Sitios edited by ICOMOS Office: International Secretariat of ICOMOS, 49-51 rue de la Fédération, F-75015 Paris Funded by the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media upon a Decision of the German Bundestag Illustrations taken from Dickinson’s Comprehensive Pictures of the Great Exhibition of 1851, London 1854. Texts, statistics and figures by Jukka Jokilehto, with contributions from Christina Cameron, Michel Parent and Michael Petzet Final editing: Michael Petzet, John Ziesemer, Regina Durighello ISBN 978-3-930388-51-6 © 2008 ICOMOS – published by hendrik Bäßler verlag · berlin Contents I. Introduction . 7 II. What is Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)? .....................................................11 II.01. The UNESCO Convention . .11 II.02. UNESCO Expert Meeting, 1976 . 11 II.03. First Definitions of OUV by the Committee ....................................................12 II.04. Report by Michel Parent, 1979 . 13 II.05. Global Strategy Meeting in Amsterdam, 1998 . 13 II.06. Operational Guidelines, 2005 . .13 II.07. Kazan Meeting on OUV, 2005 . 14 II.08. Terminological Considerations . 14 III. Justification of the WH Criteria .................................................................16 Thematic Framework...........................................................................17 III.01. Criterion (i) (Masterpiece) .................................................................18 III.02. Criterion (ii) (Values/Influences) ............................................................22 III.03. Criterion (iii) (Testimony) . .25 III.04. Criterion (iv) (Typology) ..................................................................27 III.05. Criterion (v) (Land-Use) . 29 III.06. Criterion (vi) (Associations) . .32 III.07. Criterion (vii) (Natural Beauty) .............................................................35 IV. Use of the Criteria . 38 IV.01. Criteria as Applied per Property.............................................................38 IV.02. Evolving Application of Criteria . 38 IV.03. Discrepancies in the Evaluation Process . 39 IV.04. Application of One Sole Criterion . .40 V. Other Requirements for Inscription . .43 Authenticity . 43 Integrity . .43 VI. Reasons for Non-Inscription ....................................................................45 VII. Conclusions and Recommendations..............................................................47 Annexes . 52 Annex 1 A: UNESCO Meeting in Morges (1976)....................................................53 Annex 1 B: ICCROM on OUV (1976) .............................................................56 Annex 1 C: ICOMOS on World Heritage Criteria (1976) . 58 Annex 1 D: Michel Parent, Report on WH Criteria (1979) . .62 Annex 1 E: World Heritage Expert Meeting, Amsterdam (1998).........................................67 Annex 1 F: World Heritage Expert Meeting, Kazan (2005) .............................................69 Annex 1 G: Christina Cameron, Keynote Paper in Kazan (2005) . 71 Annex 2 A: Changes to World Heritage Criteria in different versions of the Operational Guidelines.............75 Annex 2 B: Compendium of World Heritage Sites and Criteria..........................................79 Annex 3 A: Brief Descriptions of Sites inscribed in 2005–2007 . .90 Annex 3 B: Index of World Heritage Cultural and Mixed Properties......................................99 7 I. Introduction The preamble of the World Heritage Convention Concerning (ensembles) are defined as different categories of towns or the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage the “combined works of nature and man” as cultural land- (1972) presupposes “that parts of the cultural and natural scapes. Certainly, in the decades since the World Heritage heritage are of outstanding interest and therefore need to Convention was passed, modern society’s ideas of “cultural be preserved as part of the world heritage of mankind as heritage” have expanded considerably. We may just recall a whole.” For this purpose the preamble demands “a con- the categories of urban or rural ensembles and settings, as vention establishing an effective system of collective pro- well as of cultural landscapes and cultural routes, all catego- tection of the cultural and natural heritage of outstanding ries further developed within the framework of the imple- universal value”. In articles 8, 13 and 14 of this Convention mentation of the Convention. We may also recall the rural ICOMOS, the International Council on Monuments and settlements and vernacular architecture, the heritage of the Sites, is named together with ICCROM and IUCN as advi- industrial age and the heritage of the modern era, taking into sory body of the World Heritage Committee. And as adviso- account that the 20th century is also history. Even though ry body our guideline in defining OUV, the outstanding uni- the concept of cultural heritage has considerably expanded, versal value, remains of course first and foremost the World it is still considered to be compatible with the definition of Heritage Convention in connection with the Operational article 1 of the Convention, understanding the terms “monu- Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage ments”, “groups of buildings” (ensembles) and “sites” in all Convention (last revision January 2008). their varieties and in accordance with the recognition of cul- The World Heritage Convention refers to the following tural diversity. categories of cultural heritage as defined in article 1: In article 1 the World Heritage Convention not only de- fines cultural heritage as monuments, groups of buildings – “monuments: architectural works, works of monumen- (ensembles) and sites, but also sets the requirement of out- tal sculpture and painting, elements or structures of an standing universal value “from the point of view of history, archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and art or science” when dealing with monuments or groups of combinations of features, which are of outstanding univer- buildings and “from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological sal value from the point of view of history, art or science; or anthropological points of view” in connection with sites, – groups of buildings (ensembles): groups of separate or while according to article 2 of the Convention natural herit- connected buildings which, because of their architecture, age should meet the requirement of outstanding universal their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of value “from the aesthetic or scientific point of view”. Thus, outstanding universal value from the point of view of his- article 1 answers the question about cultural values of mon- tory, art or science; uments and sites that should be protected: Firstly, there is – sites: works of man or the combined works of nature the value “from the point of view of history” (= historical and man, and areas including archaeological sites which value, “old age value”, commemorative value); secondly, are of outstanding universal value from the histori - there is the value “from the point of view of art” (= artis- cal, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of tic value, aesthetic value); thirdly, one finds the value “from view.” the point of view of science” (= scientific value), and finally there are also values “from the ethnological and anthropo- The definition of monuments, ensembles and sites in arti- logical point of view” (which can also be understood as sci- cle 1 of the World Heritage Convention must be interpreted entific values). very broadly and can be seen in connection with the monu- The Convention thus starts out from a monument defini- ment definition of the Venice Charter (1964), the founda- tion and from monument values which have been phrased in tion document of ICOMOS, which preceded the Convention a rather similar form in monument protection laws of indi- and is acknowledged worldwide. “The concept of a his- vidual State Parties worldwide, i.e. mentioning first the his- toric monument”, reads article 1 of the Venice Charter, toric value, then the artistic value and further values, such as “embraces not only the single architectural work but also the ethnological or anthropological significance, for example the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence the definitions in the Bavarian Monument Protection Law: of a particular civilization, a significant development or a “Monuments are man-made things or parts thereof from a historic event. This applies not only to great works of art past epoch whose preservation, because of their historic, ar- but also to more modest works of the past which have ac- tistic, urban design, scientific or folkloristic significance, is quired cultural significance with the passing of time.” The in the interest of the general public.” Monuments and sites Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World whose preservation is a matter of public interest because of Heritage Convention have