Does the English-speaking world have a dark secret, a discomfort towards aspects of our cultural heritage? That is a question I never thought I would ask, but the more I reflect on it, the more worried I feel.
I have long supported Britain’s renewed enthusiasm for the 1972 UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Even though Britain joined the USA in marching out of UNESCO in the 80s -it returned in 1997 – it honoured the Convention through those years, contributing its dues towards the fund to protect heritage in danger worldwide.
In 1995, I wrote a guide to its World Heritage Sites. Then there were fourteen, now there are thirty-three. These include natural sites such as the Giant’s Causeway, historic buildings like Canterbury Cathedral and recent marvels of the industrial age like the Jodrell Bank Observatory. And there are more, sitting on the UK’s tentative list ready to join them.
But there’s another Convention, a twin so to speak, the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, not so widely known.
To date one hundred and eighty nations have signed up to this convention, selecting examples of their own heritage for inscription on the world list as they have for the similar list of World Cultural and Natural Heritage sites. The criteria for inclusion are clear. Submissions must be traditional, contemporary and living at the same time; inclusive; representative; and community based. On the last count, there were 584 elements of heritage, contributed by 131 countries. Many of these are shared with neighbours but all considered worthy of safeguarding with care, each a treasured legacy to be passed on to our successors.
But long before that instrument was opened for signature in 2002, this immense lacuna was fully visible. “When an old man dies in one of our villages a whole library disappears.” It was that observation by an extremely well-educated delegate from Mali to UNESCO that persuaded Richard Hoggart, the British social scientist, to accept the invitation to become an Assistant Director General at UNESCO in Paris. “The old men who carry our history in their heads, in songs, in all kinds of phrases, are very old now: and the young men are moving to the towns and have other interests” the old man had sadly observed.
So why do I worry? Because, in 2023, when the Convention will be celebrating its twentieth anniversary, the UK, USA, New Zealand, Australia and Canada remain high profile non-signatories. What links these five nations? Is it that four were all invaded by the fifth, the UK and alone of all its former possessions, the dominant culture of those invaders lives on uncomfortably with that of the marginalised indigenous populations?
Those four nations still betraying strong links with Britain, face issues different in nature and scale to once colonised, now independent. The particular challenge they face was demonstrated by their early suspicion of the thrust of the later, non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). This provides for the right of such peoples to ‘maintain, control protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions’. UNDRIP was adopted by the General Assembly by a majority of 143 states in favour with only those same four nations voting against. Later all reversed their decision, but this reversal did not extend to the Convention on Safeguarding Intangible Heritage. And there, for them, the matter rests.
But how can we explain the UK’s stance? Partly because since its return to UNESCO in 1997 until 2020, responsibility for UNESCO projects lay with the DFID led initially by Clare Short, overwhelmingly interested in development matters. Those relating to culture or many of UNESCO’s other responsibilities did not fit in with her programmes. In reply to a question in the House of Lords tabled by Lord Black in 2017 on why the UK government had not agreed to the convention, the reply was:
It is necessary to carefully prioritise resources towards those Conventions that will have the most impact on the safeguarding of our heritage, such as the recent final steps taken towards ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property. However, the Government fully recognises the contribution that the UK’s oral traditions,
It is true that the government was completing ratification of the 1954 Convention at that time (an initiative that Westminster UNA had been urging since 2004) but now five years have passed, and government continues to sidestep the matter of intangible heritage. Built heritage remains its priority. In March 2022, the DCMS online conference ‘Valuing Culture and Heritage Capital Conference’ did not address intangible heritage at all although it acknowledges regional initiatives such as Museums Galleries Scotland’s project to record and map intangible cultural heritage in Scotland. Other regional initiatives include Cornwall 365, a project commissioned by Cornwall Council and the Wilderness England project to list English activities for those interested. These and other projects, albeit well-researched, are but piecemeal efforts.
As they struggle without any coordination, government remains indifferent. In reply to Westminster’s request for an explanation (January 2023), the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport stated:
The government is fully committed to the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage in the UK. Whilst we are committed to exploring the government’s position on ratification of this convention, we are mindful it would require significant resources to deliver and meaningfully implement at a time when resources are currently under review.
Surely the problem is not really one of resources, more one of commitment. It is time for the UK to bring this exceptionalism to an end, joining the large family of nations who have set about listing their unique and often shared traditions with enthusiasm. However, some might claim that this reluctance to engage with this UN convention is post-colonial overhang, tacit support for those other four nations. If this is the case, it is misplaced. It is for them to reconcile with their indigenous peoples, and not our business.
2023 marks the twentieth anniversary of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Let us mark that by announcing our intention to ratify it and showcase to the world those traditions which remain contemporary and living, inclusive and community based. Let it not be that when our old men die, a whole library disappears.
David Wardrop
PERSPECTIVES 