10 International standards

and charters
Philip Whitbourn

After a generation of operating relatively sophisticated legislation designed

to protect our historic environment in the UK, it may seem somewhat
strange to reflect upon the very different situation that obtained in the year
1964. At that time, the concept of conservation areas did not exist, nor did
the system of listed building consents, and the financial penalty for demol-
ishing a historic building without notice was derisory. Yet that was the situ-
ation in the UK when the second International Congress of Architects and
Technicians of Historic Monuments met in Venice in May 1964 and approved
a text that we now know as the ‘Venice Charter’ and as the basis of modern
conservation.
The congress in Venice was, however, mindful of the contribution made
towards the development of an extensive international movement at a
conference held in Athens a generation earlier. At this Athens gathering
certain basic principles were defined for the first time. In particular, under
the Athens Charter of October 1931, although the difficulty of reconciling
public law with the rights of individuals was noted, recognition was given
to a certain right of the community in regard to private ownership. Also, it
was recommended that the surroundings of ancient monuments should be
given special consideration, and that buildings should be used for a purpose
which respects their historic or artistic character. A current issue in 1931
was the restoration of the Parthenon, and one of the sessions of the Athens
conference was held on the Acropolis. At this, unanimous approval was
given to the reinstatement of the southern peristyle of the Parthenon by
re-erecting original fragments that had fallen from the monument, a process
technically known as anastylosis (Figure 10.1).
‘People are becoming more and more conscious of the unity of human
values and regard ancient monuments as a common heritage,’ read the
preamble to the Venice Charter of 1964. The document went on: ‘The
common responsibility to safeguard them for future generations is recog-
nised. It is our duty to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity.’
Accordingly, it was agreed that certain guiding principles should be laid
down on an international basis, with individual countries applying these
principles within the framework of their own culture and traditions. Article
3 of the Venice Charter made it clear that the intention in conserving and
restoring monuments was to safeguard them no less as works of art than
as historical evidence. Article 11 followed up this point by seeking respect
for the valid contributions to a building of various periods. The removal of
Understanding historic building conservation

Figure 10.1 View of the Parthenon, Athens, before the central part of the southern
peristyle was reinstated by a process of anastylosis.

superimposed work of different periods to reveal an underlying state was

seen as justified only when that which was to be removed was of little
interest and when the material brought to light was of great historical,
archaeological or aesthetic value. The importance of precise documenta-
tion was emphasised in Article 16, which advocated the production of
illustrated analytical and critical reports. Also encouraged were the publica-
tion of records and the placing of them in the archives of public institutions,
where they could be made available to research workers.
In the following year, 1965, participants from the same twenty or so
countries that had drafted the Venice Charter met in Poland to give added
effect to the charter by the formation of the International Council on
Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). This is now a 5000-strong body of con-
servation professionals with national limbs in upwards of a hundred coun-
tries, and it holds worldwide general assemblies for its members at about
three-yearly intervals. In the course of several of these general assemblies
further international charters have been adopted on different aspects of
conservation, the charters usually taking their names from the venue of the
particular international gathering. Also, ICOMOS has some twenty or so
specialist committees concerned with particular conservation disciplines,
which bring their collective expertise to bear upon the text of the interna-
tional charters.
The Florence Charter on the presentation of gardens was drawn up by
the ICOMOS International Committee in Florence in May 1981 and was
registered by ICOMOS in the following year as an addendum to the Venice
Charter covering the specific field concerned. While advocating the pres-
124 ervation of historic gardens within the spirit of the Venice Charter, the point
 International standards and charters
was made that gardens are living monuments whose constituents are per-
ishable and renewable. Thus it was pointed out that their appearance
reflected the perpetual balance between the cycle of the seasons, the
growth and decay of nature, and the desire of artists and craftsmen to keep
them permanently unchanged.
The Washington Charter for the conservation of historic towns and
urban areas was adopted by ICOMOS in October 1987 to complement the
Venice Charter, in the face of perceived threats, damage, degradation and
destruction by the impact of urban development following industrialisation
in societies everywhere. To be effective, it was thought necessary for con-
servation to be an integral part of planning policy, and the encouragement
of the involvement of residents was also advocated. ‘Conservation plans,’
read Article 5 of the Washington Charter, ‘must address all relevant factors
including archaeology, history, architecture, techniques, sociology and
economics.’ The charter concluded with a statement in Article 16 that
‘specialised training should be provided for all those professions concerned
with conservation’.
The Lausanne International Charter for Archaeological Heritage Man-
agement was adopted in 1990 and opened with the following introductory
statement: ‘It is widely recognised that a knowledge and understanding
of human societies is of fundamental importance to humanity in identifying
its cultural and social roots.’ Article 1 of the charter went on to define
archaeological heritage as ‘that part of the material heritage in respect of
which archaeological methods provide primary information’. This was
intended to include the various vestiges of human existence, places
relating to manifestations of human activity, abandoned structures and
associated portable cultural material. In Article 2 of the Lausanne Charter
it was pointed out that the archaeological heritage is a fragile and non-
renewable cultural resource. Policies for its protection should thus con-
stitute an integral component of policies relating to land use, development
and planning, as well as of educational policies. An overriding principle
that ‘the gathering of information about the archaeological heritage
should not destroy any more archaeological evidence than is necessary
for the protection or scientific objectives of the investigation’ was set out
in Article 5 of the charter. Non-destructive techniques, such as aerial
survey and sampling, were therefore encouraged wherever possible,
in preference to total excavation. Article 7 made the point that the
presentation to the general public of archaeological heritage was an
essential method of promoting an understanding of the origins and
development of modern societies, as well as an important means of
promoting its protection.
At its General Assembly held in Colombo, Sri Lanka, in the summer of
1993, ICOMOS adopted International Guidelines on Education and Train-
ing in the Conservation of Monuments, Ensembles and Sites. The docu-
ment recognised that many different professions needed to collaborate
within the common practice of conservation. Thus it was stated that con-
servation courses needed to be multidisciplinary and to produce conserva-
tion professionals with the ability to: 125
Understanding historic building conservation

1. read a monument, ensemble or site and identify its emotional, cultural

and use significance
2. understand the history and technology of monuments, ensembles or
sites in order to define their identity, plan for their conservation, and
interpret the results of this research
3. understand the setting of a monument, ensemble or site, its contents
and surroundings, in relation to other buildings, gardens or
landscapes
4. find and absorb all available sources of information relevant to the
monument, ensemble or site being studied
5. understand and analyse the behaviour of monuments, ensembles and
sites as complex systems
6. diagnose intrinsic and extrinsic causes of decay as a basis for appro-
priate action
7. inspect monuments, ensembles and sites, and make reports intelligi-
ble to non-specialist readers, illustrated by graphic means such as
sketches and photographs
8. know, understand and apply UNESCO conventions and recommenda-
tions, and ICOMOS and other recognised charters, regulations and
guidelines
9. make balanced judgements based on shared ethical principles, and
accept responsibility for the long-term welfare of cultural heritage
10. recognise when advice must be sought and define the areas in need
of study by different specialists, e.g. wall paintings, sculpture and
objects of artistic and historical value, and/or studies of materials and
systems
11. give expert advice on maintenance strategies, management policies
and the policy framework for environmental protection and preserva-
tion of monuments and their contents, and sites
12. document works executed and make same accessible
13. work in multidisciplinary groups using sound methods
14. be able to work with inhabitants, administrators and planners to
resolve conflicts and to develop conservation strategies appropriate
to local needs, abilities and resources.

This checklist now underpins the structure of conservation courses gener-

ally. In addition, the document suggests that specialist courses may include
a library and documentation centre providing reference collections, access
to computerised information networks, a range of monuments and sites
within a reasonable radius, and teaching facilities with audio-visual
equipment.
The ICOMOS General Assembly in Sofia, Bulgaria, in October 1996
adopted a set of Principles for the Recording of Monuments, Groups of
Buildings and Sites. The document took as its starting point Article 16 of
the Venice Charter regarding the production of records and reports, and
was directed alike at professionals, managers, politicians, owners, adminis-
trators and the general public. Section 1.2 of the document concerned the
126 appropriate level of detail for particular purposes, while section 3.2 touched
 International standards and charters
upon various methods of recording, such as measured plans, photo-
grammetry, rectified photography and written descriptions and analyses.
Also ratified at the Sofia General Assembly in 1996 was the International
Charter on the Protection and Management of Underwater Cultural Heri-
tage. In introducing this subject, the document emphasised that by its very
character, underwater cultural heritage was largely an international
resource, resulting from trade and travel. Ships and their contents could
thus be lost at a distance from their origin or destination. Article 1 of the
charter set out certain fundamental principles including consideration of
preservation in situ as a first option; the encouragement of non-destructive
techniques, the avoidance of disturbance to human remains or venerated
sites, and the need for adequate documentation. Article 2 provided a
helpful checklist of matters to be taken into account in designing an inves-
tigation project. These included techniques to be employed; the antici-
pated funding; the timetable for completion; arrangements for collaboration
with museums; health and safety considerations; and report preparation
and documentation.
At the ICOMOS General Assembly held in Mexico in October 1999 two
more international charters were adopted, together with a set of Principles
for the Preservation of Historic Timber Structures. The aim of these prin-
ciples was to define basic and universally applicable principles and prac-
tices for the preservation of historic timber structures, with due respect to
their cultural significance. Again, Article 16 of the Venice Charter served
as the starting point, with section 1 of the International Timber Charter
stressing the importance of carefully recording the condition of a structure
before any intervention. Section 2 advocated a thorough and accurate
diagnosis of the condition and causes of decay. In section 6 minimum
intervention in the fabric was held up as an ideal, with the principle that as
much as possible of historic fabric should be retained. This, section 7
emphasised, applied to items such as roofs, floors, doors, windows, infill
panels and weatherboarding, as well as to structural members. New parts,
the document suggested, should be discreetly marked so that they could
be identified later.
One of the international charters adopted by ICOMOS at its 1999
General Assembly was that on the Built Vernacular Heritage. Vernacular
building was defined as ‘the traditional and natural way by which communi-
ties house themselves’. That type of heritage was described as utilitarian
but at the same time possessing interest and beauty. Thus it was seen as
important in its expression of the culture of a community, its relationship
with its territory and, at the same time, the expression of the world’s cul-
tural diversity. However, because of the homogenisation of cultures and
global socio-economic transformation, vernacular structures around the
world were considered extremely vulnerable. The continuity of traditional
building systems and of craft skills associated with the vernacular was seen
as fundamental to conservation, and thus needed to be retained, recorded
and passed on to new generations.
Also in Mexico in 1999 the opportunity was taken to adopt an updated
International Tourism Charter. An international conference held in 127
Understanding historic building conservation

Brussels in November 1976 had concluded with a Charter of Cultural

Tourism, which had been endorsed by some eighteen international agen-
cies and associations, and this had been adopted by ICOMOS at its General
Assembly in Rostok, Germany, in May 1984. However, it was increasingly
recognised that tourism and leisure had become major social and economic
forces and one of the world’s largest sources of employment. Moreover,
national governments had committed themselves to the concept of sustain-
able development, as expressed in the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro
in 1992. Thus one of the principles of the 1999 charter was that cultural
heritage should be managed in a sustainable way for present and future
generations, recognising that the relationship between heritage places and
tourism was dynamic and might involve conflicting values.
As the 1984 International Charter of Cultural Tourism became increas-
ingly in need of updating in the 1990s, the UK National Committee of
ICOMOS produced its own Statement of Principles for the Balanced Devel-
opment of Cultural Tourism in 1997. This followed major conferences
organised by ICOMNOS-UK at Canterbury in 1990 and at Bath in 1995.
The latter conference, on the theme ‘Historic Cities and Sustainable Tourism’
included participants from Finland, France, Hungary, Malta, the Nether-
lands, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia, as well as from various parts of the
UK. The outcome was the commending of seven principles for the bal-
anced development of cultural tourism. These were:
1. The environment has an intrinsic value which outweighs its value as a
tourism asset. Its enjoyment by future generations and its long-term
survival must not be prejudiced by short-term considerations.
2. Tourism should be recognised as a positive activity with the potential
to benefit the community and the place as well as the visitor.
3. The relationship between tourism and the environment must be
managed so that it is sustainable in the long term. Tourism must not
be allowed to damage the resource, prejudice its future enjoyment or
bring unacceptable impact.
4. Tourism activities and developments should respect the scale, nature
and character of the place in which they are sited (Figure 10.2).
5. In any location, harmony must be sought between the needs of the
visitor, the place and the host community.
6. In a dynamic world some change is inevitable, and change can often
be beneficial. Adaptation to change, however, should not be at the
expense of any of these principles.
7. The tourism industry, local authorities and environmental agencies all
have a duty to respect the above principles and to work together to
achieve their practical realisation.
Other useful ICOMOS-UK doctrinal texts include Guidelines on Archaeol-
ogy in the Management of Gardens, Parks and Estates, which were
adopted in October 1999. In this document it was accepted that the res-
toration of historic gardens could promote an enhanced appreciation of
them historically and visually. However, it was considered that presenta-
128 tional aims should be subordinate to conservation ones. Techniques
 International standards and charters
Figure 10.2 Royal Crescent, Bath, showing the unacceptable impact of tourist buses
before their re-routing to a more respectful distance.

touched upon in checklist form included plant surveys, analysis of garden

structures, earthworks recording, historical ecology, aerial and other pho-
tography, geophysical surveys such as resistivity, archaeological trial trench-
ing and augering, and soil chemistry.
At the 14th General Assembly in October 2003 at Victoria Falls, Zimba-
bwe, ICOMOS ratified Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Struc-
tural Restoration of Architectural Heritage, where the basic concepts of
conservation are presented, and Principles for the Preservation and Con-
servation/Restoration of Wall Paintings.
Particular national committees of ICOMOS have also adopted various
doctrinal texts, and almost certainly the best known and the most widely
used of these is the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Sig-
nificance, known as the Burra Charter. This sought to build upon the
Venice Charter, and was first adopted by Australia ICOMOS in August 1979
at the historic South Australian mining town of Burra. The text has been
constantly updated and revisions were adopted in 1981, 1988 and 1999.
Also, a very helpful illustrated version was produced, which fleshed out the
otherwise necessarily somewhat drier ‘Articles’ of a doctrinal text. One of
the many virtues of the Burra Charter was the three-stage ‘Burra Charter
Process’ which set out a logical sequence of investigations, decisions and
actions. The first stage was to understand the significance of the place.
This normally entailed gathering and recording documentary, physical and
other information about the place, assessing its significance, and preparing
a ‘statement of significance’. The second stage involved the development
of policy from that statement of significance. For this, information needed
to be gathered about the factors affecting the future of the place, such as 129
Understanding historic building conservation

physical condition and the availability of resources. Policy could then be

developed by identifying options and testing these against their impact
upon the significance, the concluding element of stage 2 being the prepa-
ration of a statement of policy. Stage 3 was to manage the place in accor-
dance with that policy, developing and implementing strategies by means
of a management plan where appropriate, monitoring and review being
an important element of such a plan. For the purposes of the Burra Charter,
‘cultural significance’ means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual
value for past, present or future generations, and it can be embodied in a
place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meaning, records, related
places or related objects. The charter sought to set a standard of practice
for those who provide advice, make decisions about, or undertake works
to places of cultural significance, be they historic, indigenous, or natural
places with cultural values. The clarity of the logical sequence of the three-
stage Burra Charter process – (1) understand significance, (2) develop
policy, (3) manage – is one that can be thoroughly commended to all
concerned with sound conservation practice.

130