VENISE, WHICH FUTURE?

• The UNESCO World Heritage Committee
• Experience in managing Italian UNESCO World Heritage Sites
• Experience in managing Italian UNESCO World Heritage Sites
• Venice and tourism
• Eustatic variations
• What it means to be a 'Venetian'
• Monuments of the past, today
• State intervention to protect Venice

Venice and its lagoon appears in the UNESCO World Heritage List of sites of “outstanding universal value”, set up on the basis of the 1972 Convention and regularly updated by bodies operating within the ambit of UNESCO, the specialist agency of the United Nations responsible for international issues in the fields of education, science and culture.
This high-sounding statement is correct, but its real significance could easily be misunderstood.
The importance for States “to be on the List” is not – as one might think – a matter of international prestige owing to the mere fact of having one or more places of recognised international importance situated on its territory.

Indeed, the existence of a listed site is neither the merit of nor of interest to that State alone: according to the Convention, the site may only be recognised as being “of outstanding universal value” if the result of human creative genius or nature, or of a combination of both, and thus of interest to mankind as a whole.
Any merit – and thus prestige – of the State does not lie in the mere “possession” of the site, but rather in its ability to protect, conserve and enhance it for the good of the State and all the other States in the international community.

This is the logic that inspires all the Conventions promoted by UNESCO concerning the protection of cultural heritage: together, these now form a virtually complete system of protection.

Developed over the years, starting in the 1950s, adopting different various methods and forms, each Convention sheds light on a specific problem (protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict (1954), Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property (1970), protection of world cultural and natural heritage (1972), Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001), Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) and protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions (2005), sharing the same conviction that our cultural heritage should be protected by international law, as – to use the words of the 1954 Convention – “damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world”.

1. The “outstanding universal value” of the sites included in the World Heritage List

The 1972 Convention on World Heritage is perhaps the best known part of this system. It has met with great success among States (more than 180 State Parties, i.e. almost every State in the world), as well as gaining a good “hold” on public opinion, as it calls to mind the historical list of the Seven Wonders of the World proposed by Philo of Byzantium in the 2nd Century BC (something that was recently in the headlines again after its “updating” via an internet vote). In fact, the Convention foresaw the setting-up and updating of a World Heritage List containing sites of recognised “outstanding universal value”. An intergovernmental Committee is responsible for keeping this List updated.

But what does the Convention actually mean by “outstanding universal value”?

And what does the inscription process involve?

It’s obvious that the List cannot be compared to the classic “7 Wonders of the World” of ancient times: it now contains more than 800 sites, cultural, natural and both.
Then again, the Convention, like all international treaties, was signed to create new rights and obligations for States who then decide through formal ratification whether or not to assume the responsibility for respecting the treaty.When it conceived and promoted the Convention, UNESCO did not intend to use its authority to state that certain sites are more important than others on the basis of their cultural and natural heritage, but rather it wanted to create a tool that could stimulate and help States, individually and collectively, to assume responsibility for their own cultural and natural heritage.
Each State on whose territory a site is situated declares that it intends to assume this specific responsibility from the moment of applying to the Committee for inclusion in the List, while all the State Parties assume this responsibility upon the Committee’s decision, after considering the application, to inscribe the site in the List.

The words “outstanding universal value”, therefore, are a way of expressing the concept that all the sites appearing in the List – no matter where they are in the world nor their countless great differences for geographical or historical reasons – correspond to the common standards provided for in the Convention itself and specifically described in its “Operational Guidelines” (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide 08-en.pdf ). These standards take the shape of 10 “assessment criteria” used to select the sites representative of each category and to ensure that the decisions of the Committee whether or not to inscribe a site in the List are as objective as possible.

At present, the Committee is attempting to “re-balance” the List, as certain categories of cultural and natural heritage are clearly under-represented (natural heritage in particular), as are certain geographical areas of the world. This “imbalance” – which, of course, should not be judged in mere numerical terms – is mainly due to the strict conditions in the selection process requiring the integrity of such natural sites and to the huge economic resources involved in preparing the dossiers needed to make an application for inscription.

The “title” given to a site once it makes it onto the List reflects the quality of the inscription criteria deemed to be applicable for that specific case. For example, “Venice and its Lagoon” is a title that expresses the extreme richness of the values that the Committee recognised as being present in the Venetian site.
In fact, this title means that in this case the entire city is of interest for the Convention, and not just its “town centre” or certain specific monuments. What is more, the lagoon is inscribed in the List together with the city on account of its being inseparable from the city and of international interest (in the words of ICOMOS – the International Council on Monuments and Sites, advisory body to the World Heritage Committee - “their general geographical, historical and aesthetic coherence leaves no doubt”).

2. Completeness and complexity of the “Venice and its lagoon” site

If we analyse the criteria adopted by the Committee to justify its decision to add Venice to the World Heritage List, we immediately realise just how well these criteria are reflected in the completeness and complexity of the site. No other site in Italy can, to date, “boast” that it has been inscribed in the List on the basis of all six criteria used to assess the cultural importance of a site in accordance with the Operational Guidelines, as is the case with Venice. For example, in the case of the old town centres of Rome and Florence and the city of Assisi, all the cultural criteria have been used apart from the one that designates an “outstanding example of traditional human settlement, land-use or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures) or human interaction with the environment, especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change”.
The inclusion of the city of Ferrara, for instance, meets all the cultural criteria save one, the first, that designates a “masterpiece of human creative genius”, though it only achieved this goal later, when the original inscription limits were extended to include the Po Delta.

Venice, on the other hand, not only met all six inscription criteria right away, but was also greeted with great satisfaction by the Committee and its advisory bodies, who had wished to include it earlier. In fact, Venice was added to the List in 1987, nine years after Italy’s ratification of the Convention, as the application was only made in 1986 by the Italian State (the Committee cannot inscribe new sites without having first received a formal application from the State involved, together with the preparation of a dossier accompanying the application. The more complex the site, the more complex, of course, the dossier).

An important aspect that distinguishes the Venice site - apart from its monuments, architecture, art, landscape etc. – is the “natural element” of the lagoon.
In this case, the lagoon is not so much valued for its natural characteristics, but for its cultural connotation, linked to the result of man’s interaction with nature over the centuries. While it is true that the nature factor certainly adds to the interest and fascination of the site, there is no doubt that it is also an element of fragility.
The Committee, through its advisory bodies, follows developments in the works (such as MOSE) designed and/or undertaken to face the main threats for the conservation of the site arising from changes in the natural factors.

Even though, in practice, this is a problem faced by nearly every site in List (even the most remote natural parks have cases of important human activity with a great potential for interfering with the conservation of the site, such as oil wells or uranium mines), cities need to develop a management plan that suitably integrates the site within the everyday life of the city.

In order to compare experiences and help each other, the “World Heritage Cities” have founded their own Organisation, now numbering more than 200 members in all corners of the world.
These aspects linked to the natural element and city life clearly illustrate the importance of the Venice site and, at the same time, the difficulties met in ensuring its correct and adequate conservation (other UNESCO Conventions offer food for thought with regard to city life – e.g. disappearing “arts and crafts” and the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage). In fact, bearing in mind every recognised inscription criteria for a site represents a chapter in the list of specific responsibilities that the State undertakes to assume in order to guarantee the correct protection, conservation and enhancement of the site for present and future generations, the inscription of a city like Venice, with such wide-ranging motivation, therefore implies the assumption of great responsibility by the State and the International Community as a whole.

3. Inscription of sites in the List: a future commitment

The complexity of the Venice site was, therefore, immediately recognised upon inscription. In its report on the inscription application, ICOMOS found that some of the most serious problems threatening the management of the city were those due to natural factors, those linked to tourism and those concerning the “<a href="/schede/uk/342/?aliusid=342">genuine vitality</a>” of the city, currently being undermined by a drop in population, making Venice run the risk of turning into a gigantic “open-air museum”.

In reality, all World Heritage sites are just as fragile as they are attractive.
For this reason the Convention makes States undertake to do all they can to ensure effective measures are taken to protect, conserve and enhance each site and to report regularly to the Committee on all action taken and any changes occurring to the sites.
The importance of the Convention does not end, therefore, once a site has been added to the List.
Indeed, quite the opposite is true: as soon as a site is entered in the List, the State is responsible for management of the site and answerable to all the other States who have ratified the Convention. The Committee is constantly called upon to check the “state of conservation” of the various sites.
Conversely, in light of their thereby proclaimed common interest, all the States are expected to contribute. This is done by various voluntary means of direct collaboration and by paying obligatory contributions to an international fund (the World Heritage Fund), with the Committee taking the necessary decisions as to how to use such funds in response to requests for assistance made by the States.

And if a State fails to respect its obligations after inscription of a site?

The Committee has the task of keeping two lists up-to-date: in addition to the World Heritage List, there is another List (fortunately much shorter!) containing the names of the sites already appearing in the World Heritage List that are currently in danger. The term “danger” is referred, of course, to the specific values that first motivated inscription of the site.
Such threats can arise from factors outside the control of the State in whose territory the site is located (earthquake, fire, flood… ), but also from the State’s own (in)action (e.g. construction of a bridge or motorway that ruins an area of outstanding natural beauty or the extraction of oil in areas and using methods that will compromise the survival of a protected species).

As a rule, inscription in the List of World Heritage in Danger is requested by the relevant State, as it leads to priority in access to financing from the World Heritage Fund. However, the Committee may also decide to put a site on this List of its own accord, after efforts have been made (and failed) to involve the State actively.
As a result, inscription in the List of World Heritage in Danger, if due to action taken by the State hosting the site and against its will, is obviously “condemnation” by the Committee of the line of action taken by the State in managing the site.

In any case, inscription in the List of World Heritage in Danger also acts as an alarm and an opportunity: an alarm, a “wake-up call”, warning people to work together to ward off a danger and an opportunity to exploit the means of international co-operation to achieve the goal.
If the original values motivating inscription in the World Heritage List no longer exist, the Committee has no choice but to delete the site from the List: a bitter pill to swallow not only for the State concerned, but the entire International Community. This actually happened for the very first time in 2007 with regard to a site in Oman.

It might seem that the international Committee does nothing but handle documents without any effective results on the state of conservation of a site.
It is true that the Committee has no right or means to intervene directly in the site, unless with the support of the host State.
In fact, even if on the List, a site still remains under the sovereignty of the State in which it is situated.
However, since all the States have an interest in avoiding a public “telling-off” by the Committee, if only for reasons of international prestige, they generally guarantee some form of collaboration, though methods and timescales very widely.
Such effective collaboration represents the “added value” offered by the Convention for the protection of world cultural and natural heritage.

Here is the undertaking that all States make when applying for and obtaining inscription of a site in the List: to establish, keep up-to-date and effectively introduce, in collaboration with the Committee, a suitable site management plan in the name of all mankind and, especially, future generations, so that they may enjoy a heritage as rich as that we enjoy today!

1800 - 2000 - - rev. 0.1.13