Heritage

Heritage & Society
ISSN: 2159-032X (Print) 2159-0338 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yhso20
Authenticity, Value and Community Involvement

in Heritage Management under the World
Heritage and Intangible Heritage Conventions
Harriet Deacon & Rieks Smeets
To cite this article: Harriet Deacon & Rieks Smeets (2013) Authenticity, Value and Community
Involvement in Heritage Management under the World Heritage and Intangible Heritage
Conventions, Heritage & Society, 6:2, 129-143, DOI: 10.1179/2159032X13Z.0000000009
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/2159032X13Z.0000000009
Published online: 07 Nov 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 988
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yhso20
Download by: [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] Date: 18 September 2017, At: 14:47
heritage & society, Vol. 6 No. 2, November, 2013, 129–143
Authenticity, Value and Community

Involvement in Heritage Management
under the World Heritage and Intangible
Downloaded by [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] at 14:47 18 September 2017
Heritage Conventions
Harriet Deacon1 and Rieks Smeets2
1
University of Cape Town, South Africa. 2Richelangue, the Netherlands.
Abstract
The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) World Heritage and Intangible Heritage Conventions illustrate a
broader trend towards greater appreciation of the role of communities con-
cerned in identifying, managing and protecting their heritage today. This
paper will discuss requirements for greater community involvement in heri-
tage identification and management under the two Conventions, with
special attention to the determination of heritage value and the question of
authenticity. The Nara Document on Authenticity of 1994, incorporated into
the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention in 2005
(UNESCO 2012a: Annex 4), encouraged a broader definition of authenticity
that is sensitive to cultural context. Nevertheless, the determination of heri-
tage value and authenticity remains in the hands of experts rather than com-
munities associated with World Heritage properties. Although there is no
reference to authenticity in the Intangible Heritage Convention (UNESCO
2003), States Parties are specifically requested to ensure that it is commu-
nities, groups or individuals concerned who identify the value of their own
intangible heritage. Yet because of a lack of oversight mechanisms under
the Convention, it is difficult to ensure that this is done, especially since
there is no permanent mechanism for community representation to the
Organs of either Convention.
Resumen
Las Convenciones para el Patrimonio Mundial y el Patrimonio Inmaterial de la
Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura
(UNESCO) son muestra de una tendencia a valorar más el papel que desem-
peñan actualmente las comunidades en la identificación, gestión y
© W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2013 DOI 10.1179/2159032X13Z.0000000009

130 HARRIET DEACON AND RIEKS SMEETS
preservación de su patrimonio. Este artículo estudia los requisitos que han de

cumplirse para que haya una mayor participación comunitaria en la identifica-
ción y gestión de su patrimonio bajo las dos Convenciones, prestando especial
atención a la determinación del valor del patrimonio y a la cuestión de la
autenticidad. El Documento de Nara sobre la Autenticidad, producido en
1994 e incorporado en 2005 a las Directrices Operativas de la Convención
para el Patrimonio Mundial (UNESCO 2012a: Anexo 4), amplió la definición
de autenticidad y le dio un carácter más sensible al contexto cultural. Sin
embargo, la determinación del valor y la autenticidad del patrimonio continúa
en manos de expertos en vez de estar a cargo de las comunidades asociadas a

los sitios de Patrimonio Mundial. A pesar de que no hay referencias a la auten-
ticidad en la Convención para el Patrimonio Inmaterial (UNESCO 2003), a los
Estados Participantes se les ha solicitado específicamente que garanticen que
sean las comunidades, los grupos y los individuos interesados quienes deter-
minen el valor de su propio patrimonio inmaterial. Pero, debido a la carencia
de mecanismos de verificación bajo la Convención, es difícil garantizar que
esto ocurra, especialmente porque no hay mecanismos permanentes de
representación de las comunidades ante los Órganos de las Convenciones.
Résumé
Les conventions pour la sauvegarde du patrimoine mondial et du patrimoine
culturel immatériel de l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’Éducation, la
Science et la Culture (UNESCO) illustrent une tendance vers une plus
grande appréciation du rôle des communautés soucieuses d’identifier, gérer,
et protéger leur patrimoine. Cet article traitera des conditions à remplir,
dans le cadre des deux conventions, pour une implication plus importante
des communautés dans l’identification et la gestion du patrimoine; avec
une attention toute particulière accordée à la détermination de la valeur du
patrimoine ainsi qu’à la question d’authenticité. Le Document de Nara sur
l’authenticité de 1994, incorporé dans les Orientations devant guider la
mise en œuvre de la Convention du patrimoine mondial en 2005 (UNESCO
2012a: Annexe 4), encourageait une définition plus large de l’authenticité
qui tienne compte du contexte culturel. Pourtant, la détermination de l’authen-
ticité et de la valeur du patrimoine est toujours entre les mains d’experts et
non de celles des communautés associées au patrimoine mondial. Bien que
la Convention sur la sauvegarde du patrimoine culturel immatériel
(UNESCO 2003) ne mentionne pas la question d’authenticité, il est spécifi-
quement exigé des Etats parties qu’ils s’assurent que ce sont bien les commu-
nautés, groupes ou individus concernés qui déterminent la valeur de leur
propre patrimoine immatériel. Cependant, à cause de l’absence d’un dispositif
de supervision dans le cadre de la convention, il est difficile de s’assurer que
cela est mené à bien, d’autant qu’il n’existe aucun dispositif permanent de rep-
résentation des communautés au sein des organes des deux conventions.
AUTHENTICITY, VALUE AND COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN HERITAGE MANAGEMENT 131
keywords: cultural heritage, intangible heritage, heritage values, authen-

ticity, cultural diversity, Nara Document, historic preservation, heritage man-
agement, world heritage
Introduction
Community consent, involvement, participation, engagement, and ownership have
become the most discussed, and probably least clear, topics in the heritage field
apart from “development” (Waterton and Smith 2010; Watson and Waterton
2010). The Nara Document of 1994 (UNESCO 2012a: Annex 4) presented the
idea that the authenticity of heritage should be determined “within the cultural con-
texts to which the [heritage] belong[s].” When the Document was finally incorpor-
ated into the UNESCO World Heritage Convention’s Operational Guidelines in
2005, it was part of a growing acknowledgement in the texts of the Convention
of the importance of community involvement in heritage management. The
UNESCO Intangible Heritage Convention (UNESCO 2003) even more firmly
acknowledges the importance of the role of communities concerned in identifying
and safeguarding their heritage. After a meeting to review the impact of the Nara
Document, the Himeji Recommendations of 2012 stated that:
The relative roles of experts and communities in the process of establishing

authenticity … require further discussion and clarification … Since society is
becoming more diverse, conflicts are emerging which lead to disputes within
and between communities, governments and other stakeholders over heritage
values and claims for authenticity. This reaffirms the need for greater emphasis
to be placed on developing processes, tools and frameworks that can enable
community participation in the negotiation of integrated heritage management
strategies (Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs and Himeji City 2012: 3).
It is not an easy task to formalize significant community control and responsibility

over heritage identification and management, or to return such control to commu-
nities when already appropriated by others. There are a few examples of such work
(e.g., Hemming and Rigney 2010), but much heritage management discourse and
practice still only pays lip service to community involvement in heritage manage-
ment, privileging expert judgements and dominant-group definitions of heritage
and excluding marginalized communities (Ashley and Bouakaze-Khan 2011;
Smith and Waterton 2009). Communities, heritage practitioners, academics,
NGOs, and the state compete to varying extents for control over defining and mana-
ging heritage (Taruvinga and Ndoro 2003; Chirikure et al. 2010) and over what
should be conserved and safeguarded (Jopela 2011). Legal frameworks at the
national level as well as institutional and professional arrangements still generally
privilege state agency and expert opinions over those of the communities concerned
(e.g. Jopela 2011; Smith 2000).
Identifying a group of people as a “community” and intervening to label and

manage something (a place or a practice) as “heritage” has important material
and political consequences. Therefore, it is not particularly surprising that heritage
management has in the past usually involved state agencies or heritage professionals
“telling communities what to do” (Chirikure and Pwiti 2008), manipulating heri-
tage in the interests of the nation-state (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983), or simply
“educating” communities about the value of their heritage and why others will
protect it. Naming a practice (or indeed a place) as heritage is a meta-cultural inter-
vention—it sets out a framework which posits value, a threat to this value, and a
moral obligation to address it (Hafstein 2005; Kirschenblatt-Gimblett 2004).

When states or outside agencies define people as a “community,” it is often a politi-
cal act that positions them as lacking in expertise, rights, wealth, or broader perspec-
tive and in this way effectively disempowers them (Waterton and Smith 2010).
This paper discusses the roles of communities and other stakeholders in defining
heritage value and authenticity envisaged under the World Heritage and Intangible
Heritage Conventions. First, I consider the different ways in which community invol-
vement in heritage management has been represented in the texts of these two Conven-
tions and their Operational Guidelines (UNESCO 2012a) or Operational Directives
(UNESCO 2012b). Second, I discuss how the determination of heritage value and auth-
enticity in nominations to the Lists of the two Conventions enables or restricts commu-
nity involvement. In conclusion, the paper considers some barriers to creating
opportunities for greater community involvement in the management of their heritage.
Requirements for Community Involvement under the Two Conventions

Today, both the World Heritage (UNESCO 1972) and Intangible Heritage Conven-
tions (UNESCO 2003) illustrate a broader trend towards greater appreciation of the
role of communities concerned in identifying, managing, and protecting their heri-
tage. Community involvement in identification and management of both tangible
and intangible heritage is widely thought to encourage the use, practice, and trans-
mission of this heritage, and reinforce local commitment to present and future
investment in its safeguarding or conservation.
The two Conventions present very specific contexts in which heritage is defined
and relationships between stakeholders in managing this heritage are framed. The
stakeholders include states that ratify the Conventions; communities who live near
heritage sites, or practice forms of intangible heritage; and heritage professionals
and NGOs working in the field, and making their living out of it. The effects of
implementing the two Conventions are perhaps most visible at the international
level, but they also affect relationships between stakeholders at the national and
local levels. Principles established in their texts are often applied to heritage
management more generally, and the Intangible Heritage Convention contains
some guidance for the management of intangible heritage within its States Parties.
Quite apart from their emphasis on different kinds of heritage (tangible and intan-
gible), it should be noted that the scope and intention of the two Conventions is
rather different. The World Heritage Convention seeks to conserve iconic natural
and cultural properties defined as having “outstanding universal value,” while the
Intangible Heritage Convention seeks to assist in the safeguarding of intangible heri-
tage in general. The Intangible Heritage Convention thus requires States Parties to
set up inventories of the intangible heritage in their territory and to take the “necess-
ary measures” to ensure the safeguarding thereof with community participation
(UNESCO 2003: Article 11(a)). States may also nominate intangible heritage
elements on these inventories to one of the international Lists of the Convention:
the Representative List or the Urgent Safeguarding List. By contrast, States Parties
to the World Heritage Convention only have responsibilities for conservation of

properties of “outstanding universal value” that are on the World Heritage List,
Tentative lists, or the List of World Heritage in Danger (UNESCO 1972).
Community Involvement Under the World Heritage Convention

Since the 1990s, the World Heritage Committee has been encouraging greater com-
munity involvement in the identification and management of heritage properties.
In 1994, its Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World
Heritage List proposed a “move away from a purely architectural view of the cul-
tural heritage of humanity towards one which was much more anthropological,
multi-functional and universal,” in regard to cultural properties (UNESCO 1994).
Following the Budapest Declaration of 2002, greater emphasis has been placed on
“the active involvement of our local communities at all levels in the identification,
protection and management of our World Heritage properties” (UNESCO 2002).
To “[e]nhance the role of Communities in the implementation of the World Heritage
Convention” is now one of the strategic objectives of the World Heritage Committee
(UNESCO 2012a: para 26). A special category of Conservation and Management
Assistance has been created to fund measures “[t]o improve management at a prop-
erty inscribed on the World Heritage List with special attention to community invol-
vement” (UNESCO 2012a: Annex 8).
International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), a global non-
government organization that provides advice to the World Heritage Committee
on cultural heritage properties, encourages professional members to promote com-
munity participation in their work with heritage site management:
[ICOMOS] Members are committed to promoting effective community invol-

vement in conservation processes, through collaborating with people or com-
munities associated with the monument, site or place and recognising,
respecting and encouraging the co-existence of diverse cultural values
[ICOMOS 2002].
The World Heritage Convention and its Operational Guidelines refer to the
“international community,” the “community,” and the “local community” (or
“local and national populations”) in several places:
1. “it is incumbent on the international community as a whole to participate in the

protection of the cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value, by
the granting of collective assistance [UNESCO 1972: Preamble].”
2. “each State Party shall endeavour …to adopt a general policy which aims to give
the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community …
[UNESCO 1972: Article 5].”
3. “to increase the participation of local and national populations in the protection
and presentation of heritage [UNESCO 2012a: para.211(d)].”
4. “International Assistance Request Form for Conservation and Management Assist-
ance mentions the ‘development of the management plan with participants from the
necessary sectors including the local community’ [UNESCO 2012a: Annex 8].”
In the format for the nomination of properties for inscription on the World Heri-
tage List, both “community” ownership of a property and “local” responsibility for
its management are mentioned (UNESCO 2012a: Annex 5). There is a slippage
between the notion of national and local community in the idea of a “cultural com-
munity” in the Nara Document (UNESCO 2012a: Annex 4). But generally speaking
the main emphasis is on educating national and local communities and increasing
their awareness about their World Heritage properties, while recognizing the interest
and possible contribution of the broader international community in protecting the
heritage (UNESCO 2012a: paras 15, 211). In 2009, the World Heritage Committee
decided to “develop an inclusive plan of action to increase community awareness
and engagement” around World Heritage, “including through the identification
of best practice examples and a communication toolkit to assist States Parties in
these activities at a national and local level” (UNESCO 2009).
Community participation in heritage management does not seem to be envisaged
in a consistent way across the Operational Guidelines. Operational Guideline 123
(UNESCO 2012a) states that “[p]articipation of local people in the nomination
process is essential to enable them to have a shared responsibility with the State
Party in the maintenance of the property.” Nominations of cultural landscapes
“should be prepared in collaboration with and the full approval of local commu-
nities’” according to the Guidance Note on Cultural Landscapes (UNESCO
2012a: Annex 3; emphasis added). Yet the community—expressed in the singular
—is considered on equal terms among a number of partners in the protection of
World Heritage (UNESCO 2012a: para 40) whose participation should be encour-
aged by States Parties in the identification, nomination, and protection of World
Heritage properties (UNESCO 2012a: para 12). The “essential” participation,
primary responsibility, and consent of communities concerned is not explicitly men-
tioned as a requirement in the format for nominations (UNESCO 2012a: Annex 5).
Community Involvement Under the Intangible Heritage Convention

The Intangible Heritage Convention and its Operational Directives use the terms
“communities, groups and individuals concerned” in a number of places (e.g.
UNESCO 2003: Preamble, Articles 1(b), 2.1, 11, 14, 15; UNESCO 2012b: paras 1,
2, 7) but, as in the World Heritage Convention’s Operational Guidelines, do not
define these terms. The contexts in which the terms are used indicate that commu-
nities, groups, and individuals are those people who practice and transmit the intan-
gible heritage in question, which contributes to their sense of identity and continuity
(UNESCO 2003: Article 2.1). The Intangible Heritage Convention focuses on
elements of intangible heritage that are currently valued and practiced by commu-
nities concerned—i.e. on “living heritage.” Awareness-raising has a place within
the Convention, and Operational Directive 81 (UNESCO 2012b) does highlight
the need for communities to be “[sensitized] to the importance and value of their
intangible cultural heritage, as well as of the Convention, so that the bearers of
this heritage may fully benefit from this standard-setting instrument.” But this is
required to broaden the recognition and practice of intangible heritage elements
within the community concerned rather than to revive them from nothing.
It is interesting that apart from one instance of “international community” in the
Preamble, the words “community,” “group,” and “individual” are always used in
the plural in the Intangible Heritage Convention. This may indicate a sensitivity
to the fact that several different communities, groups, or individuals may be associ-
ated with the same element or the way in which the Convention and its texts tend to
speak about “the intangible cultural heritage” in general.
The way in which intangible heritage is conceptualized under the Intangible Heri-
tage Convention foregrounds heritage as practice rather than simply heritage as
product, thus bringing the relationship between heritage and the people practicing
it into focus. The Intangible Heritage Convention thus emphasizes the need for com-
munity participation in heritage inventorying and management (UNESCO 2003:
Articles 11(b), 12, 15). The skills, expertise, and rights of communities practicing
and transmitting their heritage are acknowledged in providing education about
their intangible heritage (e.g. UNESCO 2012b: para 107(e)) and in helping to
draft safeguarding measures (UNESCO 2012c). The Operational Directives
require “free, prior and informed consent” from communities, groups, and individ-
uals concerned for awareness-raising about their intangible heritage (UNESCO
2012b: para 101(b)); nominations of their intangible heritage to the lists of the Con-
vention (UNESCO 2012b: paras 1–2) including the development of safeguarding
plans; and proposals of safeguarding practices to the Register of Best (Safeguarding)
Practices (UNESCO 2012b: para 9). The nomination forms for inscription of
elements on the lists of the Convention (ICH 01 and 02; UNESCO 2012c) require
written proof that the communities concerned have participated in the nomination
process and the development of safeguarding measures for the element and that they
have consented to its submission.
The Intangible Heritage Convention is thus much more explicit in its requirements
for community participation than the World Heritage Convention, more focused on
people directly associated with the heritage (those who practice and transmit it), and
open to several different kinds of groups and individuals being associated with this
heritage. However, compliance with the requirements for community participation

in the implementation of the Intangible Heritage Convention is not independently
assessed: submissions from States Parties are considered under a presumption of
veracity (Deacon and Smeets 2013).
Communities concerned are given no specific status or role in the Organs of either
Convention even after their heritage is inscribed on the Lists of these Conventions.
There are mechanisms for encouraging greater representation of communities at the
international level, such as by broadening representation at the meetings of imple-
menting bodies, or considering submissions from individuals or groups
(e.g., United Nations 2008). Although civil society organizations may be given an
advisory role to the Intangible Heritage Committee, and community members
may be invited to contribute expertise on specific issues (UNESCO 2012b: para
89), this happens at the discretion of the Committee, which consists of representa-
tives of States Parties (although the Committee has not yet taken full advantage of
this provision).
Determining the Value of Heritage Under the Two Conventions

In the context of increasing requirements (on paper, at least) for greater community
involvement in heritage management under the two Conventions, we now investi-
gate the extent to which the Conventions enable community participation in deter-
minations of heritage value and authenticity.
Community involvement in determinations of heritage value

Nominations to the Lists of both Conventions should include conservation manage-
ment plans or safeguarding measures. In the case of World Heritage conservation
planning should maintain the outstanding universal value of the property. Although
traditional conservation models were focused on the maintenance of historical fabric
for its own sake, values-based cultural heritage management now focuses on how
aspects of a place or object relate to the broader “value” of the heritage. The man-
agement of significance (value) rather than fabric is central to the Burra Charter
(Australia ICOMOS 1999) and later management models that emphasize the
process of establishing value and identifying and mitigating threats to it (e.g.,
Clark 2001).
But although community participation is encouraged in heritage management,
communities associated with a property generally play only a partial role in the
determination of a property’s outstanding universal value under the World Heritage
Convention and its Operational Guidelines. World Heritage properties are defined
as “outstanding” “from the point of view of history, art or science” (UNESCO
1972: Article 1, emphasis added). The ICCROM (International Centre for the
Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property) report to the
1976 UNESCO expert meeting on outstanding universal value emphasised that
the definition of outstanding universal value has to be framed within the “specialized
scientific literature on the subject, which is considered the most up-to-date
expression of the universal consciousness on the issue” (Jokilehto and Cameron

2008: Annex 1B). This was affirmed in 1998 at an expert meeting in Amsterdam
on the Global Strategy:
Identification of the outstanding universal value of heritage sites can only be

made through systematic thematic studies, based on scientific research accord-
ing to themes common to different regions or areas [UNESCO World Heritage
Centre in association with the Government of the Netherlands 1998: 15,
emphasis added].
The property has to represent an outstanding response to themes of universal

applicability in a way that reflects cultural diversity (UNESCO World Heritage
Centre in association with the Government of Netherlands 1998: 15). Whether
World Heritage properties are “representative of the best” or “the best of the
best” (Cameron 2005: 1), comparisons have to be made with other properties.
Therefore, drafting a statement of outstanding universal value requires expertise
in a relevant area of scientific research. More importantly, it requires a detached,
external judgement of heritage value through comparative analysis, i.e. not one
solely referencing the perspective of the communities concerned.
Under the Intangible Heritage Convention, heritage “value” is understood specifi-
cally as that value which is identified by communities concerned rather than by out-
siders, and it has to be identified (and maintained) with the participation and
consent of those communities (UNESCO 2003: Articles 2.1, 11(b) and 15). The
Operational Directives state that:
When publicizing and disseminating information on the elements inscribed on

the Lists, care should be given to presenting the elements in their context and to
focusing on their value and meaning for the communities concerned, rather
than only on their aesthetic appeal or entertainment value [UNESCO 2012b:
para 120, emphasis added].”
Nomination forms for the Lists of the Convention require a statement of an

element’s “social functions and meanings today, within and for its community”
(UNESCO 2012c).
The notions of “safeguarding” and management refer to the maintenance of the
viability of an intangible heritage element, i.e. its continued practice and trans-
mission by the communities concerned (UNESCO 2003: Article 2.3). Maintaining
value to communities is essential to maintaining viability—intangible heritage is
not practiced and transmitted by communities unless it has a function or meaning
for them (UNESCO 2003: Article 2.1). Safeguarding measures are required in nomi-
nations to the lists of the Intangible Heritage Convention, in particular to the Urgent
Safeguarding List, and the examination process has recently placed greater emphasis
on the need for safeguarding measures to be linked to threats and risks to the viabi-
lity of the element (see for example UNESCO 2011a: Decisions 6.COM 8.2 and
8.4). Safeguarding measures or plans, with timetables and budget commitments,

have to be included in the nomination files (UNESCO 2012c).
In the case of the World Heritage Convention, local communities do not yet
play a large role in defining outstanding universal value of properties nominated
to the World Heritage List. Even though the Intangible Heritage Convention
specifically requires community definitions of heritage value, there is no indepen-
dent verification of the claims of States Parties submitting nominations and thus
no certainty that they have followed this guidance (Deacon and Smeets 2013).
Determining heritage value is not an exact science and there are often disputes,
even within communities concerned, about who are the appropriate stewards of
a given heritage, and what the value of that heritage is. Since neither Convention
defines the term “community,” in practice, States Parties have considerable leeway
to decide whom to consult in developing nominations and how to represent the
heritage in their submissions under both Conventions. While the nomination
forms for the Intangible Heritage Convention are designed to be simpler than
those for World Heritage, heritage professionals or academics have been—and
will continue to be—actively involved in the preparation of most nominations
under both Conventions.
Community Involvement in Determinations of Authenticity

Stovel (2007) defines authenticity as the ability of aspects of a (World Heritage)
property to convey its value (i.e. outstanding universal value), while integrity is
the ability of the property (as defined and then managed) to secure and sustain
this value. Authenticity thus refers to the credibility of the evidence presented to
support claims of value. A World Heritage nomination of a cultural property now
has to include a statement of authenticity and integrity as part of a statement of out-
standing universal value (UNESCO 2012a: para 132.3). The concept of “authen-
ticity” was well established in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Western heritage
conservation discourse, affirmed in the Venice Charter (International Congress of
Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments 1964: Articles 4–8). Concerns
about the credibility of the World Heritage List after debates about the inclusion
of the Warsaw reconstruction in 1979 led the Committee to adopt a strict definition
of authenticity quite early on (Cameron 2008). The “test of authenticity,” following
the Venice Charter, was essentially based on four parameters: design, material,
workmanship, and setting, considered with reference to the tangible material of
the heritage (Jokilehto 2006).
The Nara Document of 1994 (UNESCO 2012b: Annex 4) expanded this defi-
nition of authenticity to allow for change over time and socio-cultural context. Para-
graph 9 of the Document acknowledges “original and subsequent characteristics of
the cultural heritage” (emphasis added). Paragraph 13 states that:
Depending on the nature of the cultural heritage, its cultural context, and its
evolution through time, authenticity judgments may be linked to the worth
of a great variety of sources of information. Aspects of the sources [used to

determine authenticity] may include form and design, materials and substance,
use and function, traditions and techniques, location and setting, and spirit and
feeling, and other internal and external factors.
The World Heritage Committee was slow to fully accept this view; the Nara
Document was only included in the Operational Guidelines in 2005. Even thereafter,
authenticity was mostly still identified in the traditional way in nomination dossiers
(Labadi 2010). Community-defined values or intangible values such as “spirit and
feeling” have not been widely used in developing a broad understanding of authen-
ticity in nominations to the World Heritage List to date. Paragraph 83 of the Oper-
ational Guidelines (UNESCO 2012a) explicitly acknowledges the complexity of
using “spirit and feeling” as the basis for determinations of authenticity and integrity
in World Heritage properties. In this regard some suggestions for further develop-
ment of the concept have been included in the Operational Guidelines, reaffirming
the idea of respecting “cultural and heritage diversity” by developing culturally-
specific ways of determining authenticity, respecting “attributed values” and, as
far as possible, building “a multidisciplinary and community consensus concerning
these values” (UNESCO 2012a: Appendix 1 to Annex 4). If these suggestions are
followed, community views may have a stronger voice alongside those of multi-
disciplinary, culturally appropriate experts.
Authenticity is, of course, not an inherent quality of an object or experience—
people and institutions confer this quality on something. Stovel (2007) notes that
the concept of authenticity expressed in the 1994 Nara Document is still not well
understood by States Parties and many experts. The Nara Document does permit
a reading in which “cultural communities” could be defined as the whole nation,
leaving experts and the state as the main arbiters of authenticity. These stakeholders
often wish to retain the right to define the authenticity of heritage properties without
much input from communities. Professional guidelines such as the Burra Charter for
example call for greater community participation in heritage management but con-
tinue to privilege expert judgements of value and authenticity (Waterton, Smith, and
Campbell 2006).
Under the Intangible Heritage Convention, communities may (in theory) decide
how to regulate their heritage practice and what changes to permit, but the use of
the term “authenticity” has been discouraged by the Organs of the Convention.
There were concerns in drafting the Convention that using the concept of authen-
ticity would “freeze” intangible heritage into some externally defined “original”
form (see Jokilehto 2006). Because of such concerns, authenticity is deliberately
not mentioned in the Convention. The Yamato Declaration (adopted in 2004, on
the tenth anniversary of the Nara Document) states that “the term ‘authenticity,’
as applied to tangible cultural heritage, is not relevant when identifying and safe-
guarding intangible cultural heritage” (Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs and
UNESCO 2004: para 8).
In 2011, the Consultative Body (the evaluating body for Urgent Safeguarding List
nominations) reported to the Committee that:
The element may well have changed over time and different variations, impro-
visations and interpretations may exist. The Convention is not concerned with
the question of how ‘original’ or ‘authentic’ an element is or what its ‘ideal’
form should be, rather what matters is how an element figures in the lives of
its practitioners today [UNESCO 2011b].
As Bortolotto (2011) has pointed out, however, States Parties and communities
often still refer to the concept of authenticity in nominations to the Lists of the Intan-
gible Heritage Convention. Clearly, the concept of authenticity retains some validity
for many stakeholders in authorizing certain aspects of heritage over others. The
Subsidiary Body (the evaluating body for nominations to the Representative List)
complained in its report to the Committee in 2011 about frequent “references to
essences and authenticity” in nomination files, and reminded States Parties that
the Intangible Heritage Convention does not aim “to fix intangible cultural heritage
in some frozen, idealized form” (UNESCO 2011c). However, by pointing to the
function of Intangible Heritage in providing “identity and continuity” for commu-
nities (UNESCO 2003: Article 2.1), and warning about the danger of “decontextua-
lization” and “denaturalization” (UNESCO 2012b: para 102), although these
concepts are not defined in official texts, the Operational Directives also imply
that a given context and nature of ICH should be maintained: i.e. not disturbed
by actions from outside the community of tradition bearers. What should be main-
tained (and what can change) in ICH practice at any specific point in time is deter-
mined by the communities and groups concerned.
The World Heritage Convention has thus not yet taken full advantage of the expanded
definition of authenticity in the Nara Document, especially in regard to the opportunities
presented for greater community involvement in defining the evidence base for decisions
on heritage value. Authenticity (in the traditional Venice Charter sense) was rejected in
the Intangible Heritage Convention, but the Operational Directives implicitly acknowl-
edge a broader view of community-defined context and continuity that is quite compa-
tible with a community-centred reading of authenticity in the Nara Document.
Communities themselves are often reluctant to abandon the notion of authenticity.
Conclusion
In promoting community involvement in heritage management it is useful to con-
sider the principles and approaches offered by both the UNESCO World Heritage
and Intangible Heritage Conventions and further developed in their Operational
Guidelines or Directives. The two Conventions are normative instruments that
can help to encourage good practice by promoting community involvement in heri-
tage management and, in theory, do this increasingly well. Both have incorporated a
number of requirements for States Parties and experts to consult communities and
involve them in heritage management. This may create space for better dialogue
between relevant stakeholders at the national and local levels.
The discussion above has, however, outlined a number of barriers to realizing the
vision of greater community involvement in heritage management under these two
Conventions, especially in regard to the identification of heritage value. Simply
stating the need for greater community involvement in heritage identification and
management in the texts of international instruments is not sufficient to change
existing practices. Requirements for community participation should be systemati-
cally set out in official texts. Checks and balances should be in place to ensure
that States Parties who ratify such instruments comply with their obligations.
However, requirements for community participation in the Operational Guide-
lines for the World Heritage Convention are still patchy and uneven. States
Parties nominating properties to the World Heritage List are not yet systematically
required to demonstrate meaningful community involvement in identification and
management of their heritage. Determinations of value and authenticity are still
largely required to be done by external experts. This weakens the Convention’s com-
mitment to community involvement in heritage management more generally, and
encourages a reading of the Nara Document that authorizes experts and states to
speak for “cultural communities” as nations.
Paradoxically, the Intangible Heritage Convention, which downplays formal dis-
cussion of “authenticity” and does not reference the Nara Document, provides an
opportunity for taking up the challenge posed in that Document: investigating the
implications of determination of heritage value and “authenticity” by the commu-
nities concerned. Requirements for community participation in heritage identifi-
cation and management are stronger in the official texts of the Intangible
Heritage Convention than in the World Heritage Convention, but this commitment
on paper is undermined by the fact that the veracity of submissions to the Committee
from States Parties is not independently assessed.
Community representatives are given no specific status or role in relation to the
Organs of either Convention. While community representation is possible in Com-
mittee meetings under the Intangible Heritage Convention, this mechanism has not
yet been fully deployed. States Parties (and the experts who usually help to draft
nominations and management plans) thus retain considerable power to decide who
to consult in developing nominations and how to represent heritage under both Con-
ventions. In this regard it is regrettable that the problem of identifying communities
concerned or associated with heritage elements or properties has not been further dis-
cussed and elaborated in the guidelines and directives of either Convention.
In spite of a common commitment to involving communities in heritage identifi-
cation and management, neither Convention can fully realize the aim of involving
communities in heritage identification and management without a serious consider-
ation of the problems identified above. The two Committees have not yet entered
into serious dialogue with each other, or with experts, to deploy their various
strengths in addressing these problems together.
References
Ashley, Ceri, and Didier Bouakaze-Khan 2011 Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 13(2–3):2–3.
Australia ICOMOS 1999 The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural
Significance. Deakin University, Burwood.
Bortolotto, Chiara 2011 Patrimonio immateriale e autenticità: una relazione indissolubile. La Ricerca Folklorica
64:7–17.
Cameron, Christina 2005 Evolution of the Application of “Outstanding Universal Value” for Cultural and
Natural Heritage. Proceedings of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, 29th session. WHC-05/29
COM/INF.9B.
Cameron, Christina 2008 From Warsaw to Mostar: The World Heritage Committee and Authenticity.
Association for Preservation Technology Bulletin 39(2/3):19–24.
Chirikure, Shadreck, and Gilbert Pwiti 2008 Community Involvement in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Management. Current Anthropology 49(3):467–485.
Chirikure, Shadreck, Munyaradzi Manyanga, Webber Ndoro, and Gilbert Pwiti 2010 Unfulfilled Promises?
Heritage Management and Community Participation at Some of Africa’s Cultural Heritage Sites.
International Journal of Heritage Studies 16(1–2):30–44.
Clark, Kate 2001 Informed Conservation: Understanding Historic Buildings and their Landscapes for
Conservation. English Heritage, London.
Deacon, Harriet, and Rieks Smeets 2013 The use of expertise in the examination of nomination files under the
Intangible Heritage Convention. Paper presented at a meeting of the International Research Centre for
Intangible Cultural Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region (IRCI), Tokyo, 10–11 January on “Evaluating the
Inscription Criteria for the two Lists of UNESCO’s Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention”.
Hafstein, Valdemar T. 2005 The Making of Intangible Cultural Heritage: Tradition and Authenticity,
Community and Humanity. University of California, Berkeley.
Hemming, Steve, and Daryle Rigney 2010 Decentring the New Protectors: Transforming Aboriginal Heritage in
South Australia. International Journal of Heritage Studies 16(1–2):90–106.
Hobsbawm, Eric J., and Terence O. Ranger 1983 The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
ICOMOS 2002 Ethical Commitment Statement for ICOMOS Members. Electronic document, http://www.
icomos.org/en/about-icomos/mission-and-vision/statutes-and-policies/ethical-statement, accessed February
13, 2013.
ICOMOS 2010 Policy for the Implementation of the ICOMOS World Heritage Mandate. Electronic document,
http://www.icomos-uk.org/uploads/sidebar/PDF/Policy%20for%20the%20Implementation%20of%20the%
20ICOMOS%20World%20Heritage%20Mandate%20December%20 2010.pdf, accessed February 13, 2013.
International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments 1964 The Venice Charter for the
Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. Electronic document, http://www.international.
icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf, accessed February 13, 2013.
Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs and UNESCO 2004 Yamato Declaration on Integrated Approaches for
Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage. Electronic document, http://portal.unesco.org/
culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31373&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, accessed February
13, 2013.
Japanese Agency for Cultural Affairs and Himeji City 2012 Himeji Recommendations. Electronic document,
http://nara2014.wordpress.com/himeji-recommendation/, accessed February 13, 2013.
Jokilehto, Jukka 2006 Considerations on Authenticity and Integrity in World Heritage Context. City & Time
2(1):1–14.
Jokilehto, Jukka, and Christina Cameron 2008 The World Heritage List: What is OUV? Defining the
Outstanding Universal Value of Cultural World Heritage Properties. Bässler Verlag, Berlin.
de Jopela, Albino P. 2011 Traditional Custodianship: A Useful Framework for Heritage Management in
Southern Africa? Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 13(2–3):2–3.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara 2004 Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production. Museum International 56

(1–2):52–65.
Labadi, Sophia 2010 World Heritage, Authenticity and Post-Authenticity. In Heritage and Globalization, edited
by S. Labadi, and C. Long. Taylor & Francis, Oxford.
Smith, Laurajane 2000 Doing Archaeology?: Cultural Heritage Management and its Role in Identifying the Link
between Archaeological Practice and Theory. International Journal of Heritage Studies 6(4):309–316.
Smith, Laurajane, and Emma Waterton 2009 Heritage, Communities and Archaeology. Duckworth, London.
Stovel, Herb 2007 Effective Use of Authenticity and Integrity as World Heritage Qualifying Conditions. City &
Time 2(3):21–36.
Taruvinga, Pascal, and Webber Ndoro 2003 The Vandalism of the Domboshava Rock Painting Site, Zimbabwe:
Some Reflections on Approaches to Heritage Management. Conservation and Management of Archaeological
Sites 6(1):3–10.
UNESCO 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Electronic
document, http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/, accessed February 13, 2013.
UNESCO 1994 World Heritage Committee: Global Strategy. Electronic document, http://whc.unesco.org/
archive/global94.html, accessed February 13, 2013.
UNESCO 2002 World Heritage Committee: Budapest Declaration on World Heritage. Electronic document,
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1217/, accessed February 13, 2013.
UNESCO 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO 2009 Reflection on the Future of the World Heritage Convention. World Heritage Committee.
Electronic document, http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2006/, accessed February 13, 2013.
UNESCO 2011a Decisions of the Intergovernmental Committee for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage. Electronic document, http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/ITH-11-6.COM-CONF
.206-Decisions-EN.doc, accessed February 13, 2013.
UNESCO 2011b Evaluation of Nominations for Inscription in 2011 on the List of Intangible Cultural Heritage
in Need of Urgent Safeguarding. Electronic document, http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/ITH-11-6.
COM-CONF.206-8+Corr.+Add.-EN.pdf, accessed February 13, 2013.
UNESCO 2011c Report of the Subsidiary Body on its Work in 2011 and Evaluation of Nominations for
Inscription in 2011 on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. Electronic
document, http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/ITH-11-6.COM-CONF.206-13+Corr.+Add.-EN.pdf,
accessed February 13, 2013.
UNESCO 2012a Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Electronic
document, http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/, accessed February 13, 2013.
UNESCO 2012b Operational Directives for the Implementation of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the
Intangible Cultural Heritage. Electronic document, http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/doc/src/
ICH-Operational_Directives-4.GA-EN.doc, accessed February 13, 2013.
UNESCO 2012c Forms ICH 01 and 02 for Nominating Elements to the Lists of the Intangible Heritage
Convention. Electronic document, http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00184, accessed
February 13, 2013.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre in Association with the Government of Netherlands 1998 Report on the World
Heritage Global Strategy. Electronic document, http://whc.unesco.org/archive/amsterdam98.pdf, accessed
February 13, 2013.
United Nations 2008 Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Electronic document, http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-3-
a&chapter=4&lang=en, accessed February 13, 2013.
Waterton, Emma, and Laurajane Smith 2010 The Recognition and Misrecognition of Community Heritage.
International Journal of Heritage Studies 16(1–2):4–15.
Waterton, Emma, Laurajane Smith, and Gary Campbell 2006 The Utility of Discourse Analysis to Heritage
Studies: The Burra Charter and Social Inclusion. International Journal of Heritage Studies 12(4):339–355.
Watson, Steve, and Emma Waterton 2010 Heritage and Community Engagement. International Journal of
Heritage Studies 16(1–2):1–3.

Heritage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heritage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heritage & Society

ISSN: 2159-032X (Print) 2159-0338 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yhso20

Authenticity, Value and Community Involvement

Harriet Deacon & Rieks Smeets

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/2159032X13Z.0000000009

Published online: 07 Nov 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 988

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Authenticity, Value and Community

© W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2013 DOI 10.1179/2159032X13Z.0000000009

preservación de su patrimonio. Este artículo estudia los requisitos que han de

en manos de expertos en vez de estar a cargo de las comunidades asociadas a

keywords: cultural heritage, intangible heritage, heritage values, authen-

The relative roles of experts and communities in the process of establishing

It is not an easy task to formalize significant community control and responsibility

Identifying a group of people as a “community” and intervening to label and

moral obligation to address it (Hafstein 2005; Kirschenblatt-Gimblett 2004).

Requirements for Community Involvement under the Two Conventions

to the World Heritage Convention only have responsibilities for conservation of

Community Involvement Under the World Heritage Convention

[ICOMOS] Members are committed to promoting effective community invol-

1. “it is incumbent on the international community as a whole to participate in the

Community Involvement Under the Intangible Heritage Convention

heritage. However, compliance with the requirements for community participation

Determining the Value of Heritage Under the Two Conventions

Community involvement in determinations of heritage value

expression of the universal consciousness on the issue” (Jokilehto and Cameron

Identification of the outstanding universal value of heritage sites can only be

The property has to represent an outstanding response to themes of universal

When publicizing and disseminating information on the elements inscribed on

Nomination forms for the Lists of the Convention require a statement of an

8.4). Safeguarding measures or plans, with timetables and budget commitments,

Community Involvement in Determinations of Authenticity

of a great variety of sources of information. Aspects of the sources [used to

Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara 2004 Intangible Heritage as Metacultural Production. Museum International 56

You might also like