OUV: Outstanding Universal Value

1. OUV:Outstanding Universal Value ICOMOS presentation to the 30th Session of the World Heritage Committee, Vilnius, 2006

2. Outstanding Universal Value underpins the whole World Heritage process: • It is what defines and sets apart the Word Heritage Convention from other heritage conventions • It allows humankind to value cultural and natural heritage in such a way that it transcends and crosses international boundaries

3. OUV • The concept of OUV implies a shared concern for the conservation of humanity’s heritage; • Simple concept: • Pass on to future generations what mankind as a whole values • Powerful concept- • WH Convention in terms of numbers of ratifications, most successful international convention • 812 properties now inscribed on WH list • Over 600 attendees at this meeting

4. OUV • Two definitions were given us by President of Lithuania • WHS are ‘local by their roots, national by their scope and universal by their value’ • He also quoted Claude Levi-Strauss: • ‘global culture implies universal interaction among cultures preserving their unique features’.

5. The participants of the Global Strategy Natural and Cultural Expert Meeting in Amsterdam (1998) • formulated the following definition: • The requirement of outstanding universal value should be interpreted as an outstanding response to issues of universal nature common to or addressed by all human cultures. • In relation to natural heritage, such issues are seen in bio-geographical diversity, • In relation to culture, in human creativity and resulting cultural processes.

6. Kazan themes • OUV is linked to values • OUV has evolved over time • OUV is applied through criteria • OUV underpins management • Corporate memory of OUV lies within WHC decisions • Kazan Meeting put forward a series of recommendations • Highlighted in this presentation in green

7. OUV • Deciding what has OUV = choosing what society values • Bring in value judgements • OUV like all values is attributed by people and through human appreciation • Cannot make decision purely on scientific basis • Even for natural sites some fossils valued more than others; certain rare species above others; • Value systems change • Industrial heritage, 20th century architecture now valued in a way they were not 30 years ago

8. There are intrinsic differences between cultural and natural properties • These differences have sometimes led to the incorrect conclusion that IUCN and ICOMOS do not have equivalent standards in interpreting and applying the concept of OUV. • The underlying construction and definition of OUV is different for cultural and natural features, and this difference is reflected in the carefully drafted criteria for the Convention. • The World Heritage Committee, as early as its second session of the Bureau in 1979, noted that universal value was difficult to define and that even using comparative studies it was more difficult to select cultural sites than natural sites for inclusion in the World Heritage list.

9. OUV • Concept simple: application more difficult • What tools are used? • Definition of OUV • Criteria • Thematic Studies • Scientific studies • Past Decisions

10. Tools: Criteria • The concept of OUV is given substance by applying the criteria set out in the Operational Guidelines; • The criteria have changed over years • Application of the criteria has also not been static • The criteria have evolved and will continue to evolve to accommodate changing perceptions and interpretations of heritage; • ICOMOS considers that further guidance is needed on the application of cultural criteria • Past uses • Current practices • As guidance for SPs

11. Tools: Scientific Studies • For the natural world: • Many global studies of dispositions of natural phenomena • For the cultural world: • Data is mostly gathered at national level • Few international institutions creating global databases of cultural assets • No maps: • Of threatened cultural assets • Showing global disposition of types of cultural heritage • ICOMOS cannot contribute to furthering this data

12. Tools: Thematic studies • ICOMOS acknowledges the need for more thematic studies • e.g. Rock Art • ICOMOS just published first Regional Rock art study on Latin America and Caribbean – planning more for all regions • As tools for SPs to set sites in context • Help with comparative analyses • Identify resource data • in order to achieve the effective application of the criteria there is a need for better databases of heritage information and thematic and comparative studies, both regional and global; • Need for a summary of existing thematic studies • Accessible to SPs and their decision makers

13. Tools: Past decisions • the corpus of past decisions forms an indispensable corporate memory for the application of OUV; • Past decision are corporate memory of the WH Committee • Decisions need to be more accessible – catalogue • Support comparative analyses However: • OUV reflects what today’s society chooses to value • OUV must be responsive to us today • Must allow concept of OUV to evolve • The concept of OUV in the World Heritage Convention was widely drawn to allow for evolution over time • ICOMOS is working to gather data on past Committee decisions for cultural sites

14. Identifying OUV • Identification of OUV • Kernel in all nominations • Underpins the whole process • Some nominations now very weighty • Use large resources • If fundamental OUV concept flawed, they will not be recommended for inscription

15. Identifying OUV • ICOMOS would like to see more attention given to the identification of OUV • Perhaps through Tentative lists • The Committee may like to consider how ABs might provide advice for this process

16. Justifying OUV • Appreciate that many resources sometimes applied to nominations • Weighty dossiers do not make up for lack of clarity in way criteria applied • Or lack of substantial justification of the criteria • ICOMOS considers more guidance is needed for SPs on application of criteria

17. Justifying OUV • ICOMOS preparing Guidance on Nominations and Tentative List for SP (in parallel with IUCN) • Include justifying criteria, comparative analysis etc

18. Sustaining OUV • Concept of OUV underpins the management of sites • The concept of OUV is poorly understood in general and requires major communication efforts, both generally and at site level • On how many sites do stakeholders fully understand OUV? • Arguments and debates on OUV can become quite academic • Must ensure that ultimately OUV of sites is as simple and clear as possible

19. Sustaining OUV • Sustaining OUV in the long term will only happen if sites are managed and conserved sustainably • And if there is involvement from and benefits to local communities and indigenous people • ICOMOS is proposing Guidance Manual on Sustainable Management of Sites