A Reply to "Should the UK Be Nominating More World Heritage Sites?"

Abstract

Norman has sensitively and sensibly opened a can of very squirmy worms. Her question, “Should the UK Be Nominating More World Heritage Sites?” resonates with fundamental issues that will plague archaeology and heritage management with increasing virulence in the future. How are the trade-offs between economic impact and outstanding universal cultural value (OUV) to be managed? How are equities to be balanced within countries, continents or, most profoundly, between North/South nation states. What heritage is of universal value, and how is recognition of OUV to be apportioned between natural endowments and human-made locations? And what should be the essential goals of the World Heritage Sites (WHS) process—protection and conservation as absolute priorities, or economic development and cost/benefit effectiveness? Norman’s analysis brings to these questions the sensitivity of a committed heritage manager and the cautious realism of a practitioner fresh from the trenches. Her article at least touches on all of these issues, and my comment does not attempt to offer a perspective on every one. Rather, I choose to take issue with Norman’s conclusion that “Ultimately, the argument seems to be an ethical one” (Norman, 2011: 77). Without disputing the ethical issues she raises, nor the importance of ethical considerations in this matter, I argue that her article and the underlying research to which she refers make a much stronger case for considering the economic consequences of the World Heritage inscription process than perhaps she herself recognizes. There are four points to consider: First, the reality is that the UK, like the rest of the world, is entering into an era of constrained economic resources that will disproportionately affect heritage-related activities in favor of social services. Second, a paucity of hard data and sound evaluation has rendered impossible up-or-down judgments on the value, economic or otherwise, of WHS status. Third, Norman’s paper and related materials raise the specter that WHS “branding” may have diminishing or even negligible returns to the investment made in achieving WHS status. Fourth, therefore, the increasing need for sponsors of potential World Heritage Sites need to give far greater weight to their opportunity costs and the potential returns to investment. I would like to consider each of these matters in order. No regular reader of the daily newspapers could fail to be aware that the present UK government’s budget has severely slashed support for heritage-related matters. English Heritage has suffered draconian budget reductions, and UK universities that underwrite so much heritagerelated work are under profound pressure to demonstrate their “impact,” prominently to include economic value. And of course, the UK is not alone. Most of the world is under severe economic pressure. Greece is wrestling with a profound crisis of government financing. Facing lesser pressures, Italy has placed responsibility for heritage, museums and antiquities in the hands of a former McDonalds Corporation executive who is actively evaluating privatizing iconic sites such as the Colosseum. The United States is on a budget trajectory to reduce funding for its vast system of parks and for other forms of heritage. Japan is recovering from a natural disaster. These economic pressures are global in nature, with only a few fortunate nations in Asia seemingly immune from pressures on national budget priorities. In this environment, any actions to preserve heritage or