The United States

and

the World Heritage Convention

James Charleton,
Office of International Affairs
National Park Service

Introduction:

The World Heritage Convention is the most universal environmental treaty in history, with 158 signatories.  It has been the capstone of international conservation and preservation movements for a quarter century.  It also would appear, through official and non-official publications of many countries, to be one of the most highly respected international agreements.

This paper provides an overview of U.S. participation in the World Heritage Convention, including the site nomination process and current issues.  It will be useful to consult the accompanying set of materials, most of which were originally prepared by US/ICOMOS at the request of the National Park Service.  US/ICOMOS has assisted the U.S. World Heritage program in other ways, a subject which will figure again in this paper.

Summary of the Convention's History and Operations:

Through the World Heritage Convention, nations voluntarily  nominate exceptional examples of their natural and cultural sites to the World Heritage List.   The Convention explicitly recognizes that each nation maintains sovereignty and management authority over its sites; for example, only U.S. law applies to U.S. sites.

The 21-nation World Heritage Committee (technically the "Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of Outstanding Universal Value"), with a staff located in the World Heritage Centre in the UNESCO complex in Paris, France, selects World Heritage Sites (and the corresponding List of World Heritage in Danger) and administers the World Heritage Fund.  The signatories contribute to the World Heritage Fund to maintain the List and assist properties on it.  The Committee is assisted by three statutory Advisory Bodies -- the World Conservation Union (International Union for the Conservation of Nature)(IUCN), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (Rome Centre).

At present, 630 sites in 118 countries have been accepted to the World Heritage List.  Of the sites, 480 are cultural, while 22 mixed sites contain outstanding examples of human interaction with nature.  The other 128 sites are inscribed for their natural area attributes.  There are 27 sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger, 9 of which are cultural or mixed.

The United States has had a prominent role in the establishment of this coordinated worldwide system for nature conservation and cultural site preservation.  The U.S. not only proposed the World Heritage Convention to the international community as an extension of the American national park ideal, but was the first nation to ratify, when the U.S. Senate approved the Convention 95-0 in late 1973.

Since the treaty entered into force in 1978, the U.S. has served on the World Heritage Committee continuously, except for 1985-87,  until stepping down last year.   The U.S. in 1978 chaired the first World Heritage Committee meeting that listed sites.  That first World Heritage List included 12 sites, two of which were Mesa Verde and Yellowstone National Parks.  In 1992, the Committee met in Santa Fe, New Mexico.  The United States, as the host country, again chaired the meeting.

Twenty sites in the U.S. are inscribed on the World Heritage List, of which eight are cultural.  Two U.S. natural sites (Everglades and Yellowstone National Parks) are on the List of World Heritage in Danger. 

Framework for U.S. Participation:

The U.S. World Heritage Program has a firm legal basis.  Pursuant to the treaty, legislation (Title IV of the Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980) authorized the Secretary of the Interior to "direct and coordinate" U.S. participation in cooperation with the Secretary of State, who would provide foreign policy guidance, and other Federal agencies.

Program regulations promulgated in 1982 still govern U.S. participation.  The regulations delegate responsibility to administer domestic and international World Heritage activities to the Department of the Interior's Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.  These notably include the authority to nominate sites to the World Heritage List on behalf of the United States.

The regulations set up the Federal Interagency Panel on World Heritage, consisting of representatives designated by various Federal agencies active in preservation and conservation, to advise the Assistant Secretary on World Heritage issues.  The prime issues are the maintenance of the U.S. Indicative Inventory of Potential Future World Heritage Nominations (discussed further below) and the review of draft U.S. nominations to the World Heritage List.  The Panel also discusses international aspects of the World Heritage Program, because the Assistant Secretary or other Interior officials represent the United States at World Heritage meetings. The National Park Service provides staff support to the Assistant Secretary and the Panel.  As a concerned non-governmental organization (NGO), US/ICOMOS, although not a member of the Panel, has been a faithful observer at its meetings.

Nomination of Sites to the World Heritage List: 

Process:
The World Heritage Committee reviews and approves nominations of sites by countries to the World Heritage List. This involves the preparation of a formal and complex nomination document, its submittal by a national government, review and recommendation by the Advisory Bodies referenced earlier, and a decision by the World Heritage Committee on whether the site should be listed.  This is not a process that leads to pro forma approval; the findings of the Advisory Bodies, for example, weigh heavily in a site's consideration.  The United States has, for example, been unsuccessful in several nominations and a few others have been deferred.

Criteria:
Although the Convention generally defines the types of properties that are eligible for the World Heritage List, the precise criteria for inscription are adopted by the World Heritage Committee.

The World Heritage List is not an international register of national registries of sites.  The criteria for inclusion in it are very exacting and are intended to exclude all but properties of outstanding universal significance, a concept obviously more easily stated than defined in practice.

Applying the World Heritage criteria is an immensely complex task. Even before the ink on the Convention was dry,­ it was possible to foresee a flood of nominations to the World Heritage List coming in from countries laboring in isolation to identify their most important trea­sures.  Many countries had "old towns" or historic city centers, every major European nation was likely to come forward with cathedrals, Southeast Asian nations would expect to put forward their Buddhist temple complexes, the Western Hemisphere states might present many Native American sites, and so on.

Obviously, if the List was to maintain its intended highly exclusive standard, the Committee had to have a method to coordinate comparative international evaluation of the properties and provide reasoned evaluation of obscure, but very significant sites, as well as universally familiar "Wonders of the World."

Tentative Lists (Indicative Inventories):
As a way to structure this massive task, the notion of tentative, or indicative, lists, was devised.  Each signatory was charged to review its own national inventories of natural and cultural treasures and prepare a tentative list of those properties that it eventually intended to consider for nomina­tion.  By comparing the proposed nominations from different na­tions, the Committee and its Advisory Bodies would get a clearer idea of the properties that might be suitable for World Heritage designation, and also be in a position in turn to advise member nations on what nominations were likely to be accepted to the List.

The United States has the distinction of being the first nation to prepare such a List.  Technically it is known in the U.S. World Heritage program as the Indicative Inventory of Potential Future U.S. World Heritage nominations.  As prescribed in the program regulations, a U.S. nomination must be taken from this list or, if not on it, must be added to it before nomination.

The current U.S. Indicative Inventory is a slightly amended version of that approved for use by the Department of the Interior in 1982.  Essentially, it is a best judgment list­­ that was prepared without extensive formal evaluation of the international importance or influence of the sites that appear on it, although advice was sought through circulation of a draft to profes­sionals outside government and comments were solicited through press releases and by limited publication.  It was understood at the time that there were gaps.

A review of the U.S. Indicative Inventory will no doubt raise questions as to what is and is not included.  By law, only sites that are in the Federal estate or that have been designated National Historic Landmarks or National Natural Landmarks can be included.  As a logical and practical matter, this requirement makes sense because a property of international importance ought first to be demonstrated to possess national significance.

In recognition of its imperfections, it was decided that­ the U.S. Indicative List would be an open-ended or revolving list.  It would be open to new suggestions from any source subject to the presentation of a reasoned case to the Assistant Secretary and the Panel as to how a proposed property meets the World Heritage criteria.

There have, however, been a mere handful of amendments to the Indicative Inventory since its publication in 1982.  In terms of organized efforts to refine the U.S. Indicative Inventory, US/ICOMOS is to be commended for having performed two major studies of American architecture and Spanish missions that supplement the inventory.

Legal and Practical Limitations on the U.S. Nomination Process:

In addition to being placed on the U.S. Indicative Inventory, a proposed U.S. nomination must pass other tests.  These requirements help to account for what may seem to be a very small number of cultural properties nominated over the years.

The U.S. World Heritage Program fully respects private property rights.  Although anyone may propose that a property be nominated to the World Heritage List, no non-Federal property can be nominated without the written voluntary concurrence of its owner.  Further, because all nominations must include "evidence of such legal protections as may be necessary to ensure preservation of the property and its environment," every owner must affirmatively pledge to protect the property.

In this requirement lies the reason for one of the most obvious gaps in the U.S. tentative list and in U.S. nominations generally: the absence of historic towns and city centers.  The U.S. World Heritage nomination process, by requiring such affirmative pledges of participation and protection by all property owners, effectively eliminates historic districts and towns in multiple ownership from consideration.  With that in mind, it is also easier to understand the predominance of National Parks (17 are included within the U.S. World Heritage Sites) in the U.S. listings so far.  The U.S. Government, as the owner, decided to offer the required protective pledges on its own behalf.

Finally, the original U.S. Indicative Inventory was envisioned to yield groups of sites that would be nominated in clusters.  This has not occurred because of the formidable effort involved in nomination preparation and in coordinating the efforts of multiple site administrators.

US/ICOMOS Contributions to World Heritage:

US/ICOMOS has been the prime private NGO partner to the U.S. World Heritage program from the inception.  US/ICOMOS contributed to the National Park Service program leaflet and prepared some of the information materials distributed along with this paper.  It has regularly staged lectures and events and sponsored interns on World Heritage topics and at World Heritage Sites.  The studies of American architecture and Spanish missions that helped refine the U.S. Indicative Inventory were supported by US/ICOMOS, as was the preparation of the World Heritage nomination of Monticello and the University of Virginia.  The charette that US/ICOMOS recently conducted at a World Heritage Site in Ghana is a noteworthy example of the kind of activity to assist World Heritage Sites abroad that an NGO can engage in.

Looking Ahead: World Heritage in the United States:

The Department of the Interior is revising the U.S. World Heritage program regulations to correct technical flaws, notably the outdated calendar for the nomination process and the outdated criteria, and to positively enhance public participation.  Efforts to provide accurate information to the public about the program will also continue.

The National Park Service and US/ICOMOS need to discuss the scope of future cooperative activity.  There are many challenges, and opportunities, both domestically and internationally.  The brief comments that follow are meant merely to point out areas for possible discussion.

Someone has stated that a country may be judged more by the quality of the care it gives to those sites that it lists than by the number of sites its lists.  This is true of preservation at any level, but it suggests an emphasis to bear in mind.

There are acknowledged gaps in the U.S. Indicative List. Changes in the interests of preservationists, such as the emphasis on the study of cultural landscapes, historic routes and transportation corridors, and a still-evolving international debate over concepts of integrity and authenticity suggest that refreshing the U.S. Indicative Inventory is a task that needs to continue. Anticipated changes in the World Heritage criteria will also make it necessary to look closely at how all sites are assessed for both their natural and cultural attributes.

No one nation can adequately or credibly conduct international comparative studies.  At the international level, ICOMOS has conducted such studies for bridges, canals, and railroads. More will be necessary.

Looking Ahead: World Heritage Abroad

The international World Heritage program faces the challenge of matching its grand vision with resources that total less than $5 million per annum.  It also faces organizational and administrative issues of great difficulty, including linking its work successfully with that of other treaty bodies.

Some nations that have not served on the World Heritage Committee desire to do so.  The Committee's 21 seats do not go very far among 158 signatories, a fact that played a role in the U.S. decision to step down from the Committee last year.

There are 40 nations that have no sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, while many others have only a few.  These countries deserve the recognition and assistance that listing would bring, but often lack the means to inventory, nominate, and protect their sites.  Many of these nations would like to see those countries with many sites, such as the United States, work with them to make the List more representative and less Eurocentric. The U.S. is taking steps to do that, including a State Department funded program in east Africa scheduled for later this year to train responsible national officials in the preparation of tentative lists and nominations and by proposing that nominations from un-represented and under-represented countries and topics receive priority consideration by the Committee.

The international World Heritage program is also becoming more and more concerned with protecting sites, as well as listing them. Only one example will be cited in the interest of illustrating how a tiny assistance effort can matter at a very important site.  Last year, Cambodian craftsmen at Angkor Wat taking part in a restoration project financed by the World Heritage Fund each received a salary of $30 a month from the Fund.  Without those monies, those workers would not have been employed.

Conclusion:

The World Heritage Program is conducted to carry out a treaty obligation of the U.S. Government.  The modest resources devoted to carrying it out have been supplemented by the efforts of US/ICOMOS and other NGOs.  It is hoped that ways of strengthening this cooperation and maximizing its effectiveness will emerge in the discussion that follows this presentation and in the other sessions of this meeting.

INFORMATION ON THE WORLD HERITAGE PROGRAM CAN BE FOUND ON THE WORLD HERITAGE CENTRE'S WEBSITE  -- http://www.unesco.org./whc

JAMES CHARLETON  is International Cooperation Specialist, Office of International Affairs, National Park Service.  Since 1995, he has provided staff-level support to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks of the Interior Department in the conduct of the U.S. World Heritage Program. These responsibilities include the U.S. nomination process.  He has also served on U.S. Delegations to World Heritage Committee meetings.   Earlier, he coordinated preparation of the cultural site portion of the U.S. Indicative Inventory of Potential Future World Heritage nominations and drafted several of the U.S. cultural nominations to the World Heritage List, including the Statue of Liberty, Independence Hall, and La Fortaleza-San Juan National Historic Site.  As a staff historian for the National Historic Landmarks Program, he prepared numerous successful site nominations, including 8 of the 26 in Indiana.  He has also served as Chairman of the Historical Affairs and Landmarks Review Board of Arlington County, Virginia. james_charleton@nps.gov