The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice

ISSN: 1756-7505 (Print) 1756-7513 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yhen20

Cultural Heritage Reconstruction after Armed

Conflict: Continuity, Change, and Sustainability

Roha W. Khalaf

To cite this article: Roha W. Khalaf (2019): Cultural Heritage Reconstruction after Armed
Conflict: Continuity, Change, and Sustainability, The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice, DOI:
10.1080/17567505.2019.1605709

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2019.1605709

Published online: 15 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yhen20
THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE
https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2019.1605709

Cultural Heritage Reconstruction after Armed Conflict:

Continuity, Change, and Sustainability
Roha W. Khalaf
Consultant architect, independent scholar, Kuwait City, Kuwait

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Post-conflict reconstruction is caught in a web of challenges, dilem- Armed conflict; continuity;
mas, and opportunities. It can re-establish the thread of continuity change; cultural heritage
with a pre-conflict time and change people’s conditions for the better reconstruction; cities; people;
recovery; build back better;
in line with twenty-first century roadmaps. Notable among these are
sustainability; sustainable
the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 and the development goals
2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Aligning reconstruction
plans with principles of Build Back Better (BBB) and Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) can help define a strategy for recovery,
address underlying vulnerabilities, build resilience, regenerate liveli-
hoods, and improve well-being. This article explores the nexus
between continuity, change, and sustainability within the framework
of cultural heritage reconstruction at city level. In doing so, it con-
tributes to ongoing international efforts, such as those of United
Nations agencies and the World Bank, which aim at returning people
and cities devastated by armed conflict, for example in the Middle
East and North Africa (MENA) region, to a new, sustainable, state of
normalcy. Key practical lessons are drawn from this research to
inform the elaboration of guidelines on the reconstruction of cultural
heritage, including World Heritage. Guidelines are needed to clarify
what is, and is not, acceptable in line with contemporary views
because classical views are becoming obsolete.

Introduction
Cities are dynamic urban environments with constant human activity. They are shaped by
a ‘synergy between old and new, between change and continuity’, which has ‘created the
places we consider “heritage”’.1 These places should not be frozen in time and managed
by means of ‘a static, monumental approach as inherited from the previous century’
because it ‘is wholly inadequate, or perhaps downright destructive’.2 This fact prompted
UNESCO to question the philosophical and theoretical frameworks underpinning interna-
tional heritage doctrine, such as the Venice Charter,3 and to develop a new international
instrument that calls for the application of a landscape approach to heritage management
in an urban twenty-first century.4 Further practical reflections are nonetheless necessary to
achieve the goal of sustainable development in cities while meeting the increasing needs
of this century, including how to mitigate the impacts of rapid urbanization, mass
migration, climate change, natural disasters, and armed conflicts.

CONTACT Roha W. Khalaf [email protected]

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 R. W. KHALAF

Cities in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, for example, have recently
experienced ‘unprecedented’ destruction and ‘the biggest refugee crisis since World War
II’.5 Armed conflicts have destroyed many heritage places and transformed urban land-
scapes. The governments affected are left with different intervention options. Ultimately,
they may decide, in a selective manner, to preserve some ruins (memorialization), to
remove others (abandonment), to start afresh (modernization), or to reconstruct, which,
in simple words, ‘means to build again as closely as possible to a documented earlier
form, using new materials’.6 However, post-conflict reconstruction at city level, which is
the concern of this article, is not simply a technical exercise of re-building the architec-
tural and urban fabric of the past.
Post-conflict reconstruction is not only a project or product, but also a process that
helps people recover. It raises many challenges, opportunities, and dilemmas, notably
what to continue and what to change. This question is of utmost importance because
the synergy between continuity and change is inextricably bound up with the progres-
sion of people and cities.7 On one hand, reconstruction can re-establish the ‘thread of
continuity’ with a pre-conflict time ‘that people search for when the rhythm of everyday
life has been shattered’.8 On the other, it can change people’s conditions to improve
everyday life, especially in line with twenty-first century roadmaps. Notable among these
are the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–20309 and the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development,10 which are strategically linked to the New Urban Agenda
adopted at the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban
Development (Habitat III) in October 2016.11
For example, armed conflict in Iraq has left the city of Mosul in a devastated physical
condition. In February 2018, UNESCO, in cooperation with the Government of Iraq,
launched the international initiative ‘Revive the Spirit of Mosul’ to remedy its current
state of destruction.12 In August 2018, UNESCO and UN-Habitat hosted a workshop to
develop an ‘Initial Planning Framework for Reconstruction of Mosul’ where it was
admitted that ‘simply returning Mosul to its status before ISIL is not good enough –
now is a unique opportunity to “build back better” and develop a people-centred urban
vision for the future’.13 This unique opportunity brings to mind Priority 4 of the Sendai
Framework and Goal 11 of the Sustainable Development Agenda. Special attention is
given to cultural heritage assets, notably ‘the restoration and historically faithful recon-
struction of the Leaning [Al-Hadba] Minaret, the Al-Nouri Mosque’ among other cultural
and educational institutions14 as a means to reconnect ‘people to their history, identity,
pride and cultural life’.15 In October 2018, UNESCO and UN-Habitat hosted a public
meeting in Mosul to give residents an opportunity to share ideas and comments.16
UNESCO will also collaborate with the World Bank to adapt and implement the CURE
Framework in Mosul,17 which was developed and disseminated in November 2018 to
mainstream culture ‘both as an asset and as a tool’ ‘into post-crisis city reconstruction
and recovery’ worldwide.18 There seems to be general agreement that reconstruction
after crisis requires ‘open-mindedness, and readiness to embrace new approaches’
without the ‘intellectual taboos’19 inherited from classical views.
This article critically engages with heritage theory and draws on literature and
policy analysis to explore the nexus between continuity, change, and sustainability
within the framework of cultural heritage reconstruction at city level. In doing so, it
contributes to ongoing international efforts, such as those mentioned above, which
 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 3

aim at returning people and cities devastated by armed conflict to a new, sustainable,
state of normalcy. The first two sections examine continuity and change to gain
a better understanding of their meanings and implications. The third section exam-
ines sustainability, which, as it will be shown, embraces both continuity and change.
The conclusion explicitly presents the practical lessons learned from this research to
inform the elaboration of guidelines on the reconstruction of cultural heritage,
including World Heritage.20 Dedicated guidelines (not simply guidance) are necessary
to clarify what is and is not acceptable, and why these should align with contempor-
ary views, because classical views are becoming obsolete. This article will be of
interest to all those who investigate, conserve and manage the historic environment,
but its main target audience is policy-makers, which is why it is relatively short and
straightforward.

Continuity
Continuity means the ‘endurance of the past in the present’ or, said differently, ‘a living
past bound up with the present’.21 It is often combined with the term ‘culture’ (i.e.,
cultural continuity). Culture is rather experienced than observed. Its meaning is broad,
embracing ‘what any given society has (material possessions and objects), thinks (tradi-
tions and beliefs) and does (behavioral patterns including recreations)’.22 Cultural heri-
tage is part of what society has, thinks, does and indeed values.
The Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage, also known as the World Heritage Convention, limits the definition of cultural
heritage to ‘monuments’, ‘groups of buildings’ and ‘sites’, which are immovable tangible
‘properties’.23 This narrow definition was later expanded, in the Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, which acknowledges ‘practices, repre-
sentations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts
and cultural spaces associated therewith’ that provide people with a sense of
‘continuity’.24 In reality, both tangible and intangible aspects of cultural heritage provide
this sense, which is why, one may argue, the concept of continuity presents an oppor-
tunity to strengthen synergies between these Conventions. One may add that it also
presents an opportunity to bridge the culture/nature divide in the implementation of
the World Heritage Convention (nomination, evaluation, protection and management)
because continuity can sustain the bonds that exist between people and nature in some
properties. More so, it can help ‘enhance the role of Communities’ in accordance with
the fifth strategic objective (5th C).25 Its potential as a World Heritage qualifying condi-
tion is therefore an avenue to explore.
Continuity is particularly important in inhabited cities, including World Heritage Cities.
Not only does it sustain the physical and visual historic urban character (e.g., forms,
proportions, spatial layouts), but also the values, functions, uses, practices, activities,
management systems, craft skills, beliefs, traditions, memories, rituals and other familiar
connections between people and their environment over time. As Kevin Lynch
remarked, it is these ‘familiar connection[s], not all the old physical things themselves,
that people want to retain’ in a city.26 These connections instill the feelings and senses
of belonging, identity, ownership, and social stability that people need. But if ‘all the old
physical things themselves’ are destroyed, all these senses can be shattered.
4 R. W. KHALAF

In post-destruction scenarios, ‘the continuity of culture and familiarity’ plays

a significant role in building ‘community resilience’.27 It also facilitates the ‘recovery’ of
people, which, ‘in cultural terms, is not necessarily a question of reconstructing physical
assets, but rather of re-establishing broken connections among people and between
people and their environment’.28 Still, the reconstruction of physical cultural heritage
assets that are of great emotional and symbolic value to people remains a ‘popular’
approach in post-conflict scenarios in particular.29 A case in point is UNESCO’s support of
‘the restoration and historically faithful reconstruction of the Leaning [Al-Hadba]
Minaret, the Al-Nouri Mosque’ in the Old City of Mosul,30 which was included in the
Tentative List of Iraq in July 2018 to be potentially nominated for inscription on the
World Heritage List. This support echoes the fact that heritage, whether tangible or
intangible, is renewable, replaceable, ‘constantly chosen, recreated and renegotiated in
the present’31 to suit the needs of people – despite some authors’ claim to the contrary,
such as those who wrote the Venice Charter. The latter reflects classical views, which is
why it rules out reconstruction and emphasizes change over continuity.

Change
Change means differentiating the present from the past, the new from the old, the
contemporary from the original. The Venice Charter insists that ‘any extra work’ ‘must be
distinct’, ‘must bear a contemporary stamp’, ‘must be distinguishable from the original’
and ‘always be recognizable’.32 The problem is that the Charter does not specify the
extent of the ‘contemporary stamp’.33 Lack of clarity has resulted in the insertion of
‘contrasting modern additions, alterations and new buildings in historic places
worldwide’.34 The ‘loss of continuity’ in historic urban character became, ironically, ‘the
inevitable consequence of the preservation activity itself’, which begs the question as to
‘why should a historic place not continue to evolve as it always has in the past’35 without
the introduction of intentional change, such as different materials.
The answer can be traced back to preservation purists, notably John Ruskin and
William Morris, whose gaze was largely focused on the past. They isolated the past from
the present to preserve honesty and truth in the built environment, and they ruled out
reconstruction as well as restoration. In their view, ancient buildings are ‘precious works
of art’ that are meant to age with the passage of time and keep their aesthetic and
historical values; they are ‘not social commodities’, which is why ‘the real needs of the
local community mattered less’ to Ruskin and Morris ‘than the more abstract needs of
[their] imagined community of aesthetes, scholars, artists, poets [..] including as yet
unborn generations’.36 They tolerated maintenance, but upheld the position that ‘the
proper’ treatment is to ‘resist all tampering with either the fabric or ornament of the
building as it stands; if it has become inconvenient for its present use... raise another
building’.37 They excluded the possibility of restoring or reconstructing a building to
return it to use and insisted that such intervention would only result in the loss of
authenticity and the creation of a fake. As a result of this classical philosophy of ‘truth-
enforcement conservation’,38 reconstruction was, for a long time, ‘confronted with the
allegation of being merely a copy, a forgery or a fraud’39 that falsifies history. This
explains why it was believed that a destroyed historic place or building should not
continue to evolve as it had in the past (by being reconstructed and re-used in the
 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 5

present) and why distinguishability (recommended by Camillo Boito) was later stressed
in the Venice Charter.
No matter how widespread this allegation is, the truth is that reconstruction does not
actually falsify history. Rather, it can change the way history is remembered and inter-
preted/understood by future generations. Admittedly, reconstruction conceals some of
the traces of history on the ground such as the physical evidence of destruction caused by
armed conflict, and affects the visibility of the passage of time in the built environment,
but these consequences are not falsifications of history. Any intervention that is done to
the physical remains of the past in the present is a true part of history. A place, whether
preserved or restored or reconstructed, is part of history simply because it has occurred,
which is why it cannot be ‘false.’40 Sure, some interventions can be more appropriate than
others,41 and some layers can be more culturally significant than others, but they are ‘all
equally authentic, silent testimonies’ of a place’s ‘actual evolution’ and actual history.42
As a result of classical views, many scholars and practitioners believed (and still
believe) that reconstruction is a ‘misrepresentation’ of the past, but one may argue
that preservation is not an accurate representation either: a place destroyed in the
present was a whole and intact place in the past, not a selection of preserved scattered
remnant relics. Many also believed (and still believe) that the physical evidence of
destruction must be preserved on the ground in order to be transmitted to future
generations for their benefit; yet, ‘it is quite impossible to know, and perhaps
a peculiar kind of arrogance to assume that future generations will be grateful to us
for what we preserve for their benefit’.43
Conservation, in general, should be done, first and foremost, for the benefit of current
generations. Imposing intentional discontinuities with the past or forced change in the
name of physical evidence connected to a particular historical event such as armed
conflict, which may or may not be valuable in the future, can be intolerable to current
generations. Like previous and future generations, they too have the right to continue to
use cultural heritage, to determine its contemporary relevance, and to decide for
themselves how to treat what is left from the past for their comfort in the present.44 If
reconstruction is sympathetic (e.g., compatible, harmoniously integrated), identifiable to
prevent deception (e.g., includes informational panels, websites), and meets the need for
continuity (e.g., allows for the continuity of values, helps re-establish broken familiar
connections, helps resume cultural and urban life in the city), it should be ‘ruled in’.45 In
fact, a distinguished international expert in the heritage field, Henry Cleere (in memor-
iam), remarked a long time ago that ‘it is surely not in the best interests of the cultural
heritage as a whole for those responsible for its conservation to take refuge behind
academic niceties of interpretation’ – or academic criteria of authenticity [this author’s
addition] – ‘in order to avoid sympathetic reconstruction’.46
Recently, professional attitudes towards reconstruction have been slowly drifting
away from classical views.47 It seems that the shift in emphasis in international heritage
discourse from ‘conservation’ to ‘management of change’ and ‘sustainable development’
for the benefit of ‘communities’ who ‘use’ cultural heritage as part of contemporary life
has had an influence on these attitudes. This shift is in line with contemporary theory of
conservation, which, unlike classical truth-enforcement conservation, places the spot-
light on people because it acknowledges that ‘the final goal’ is ‘to satisfy certain needs
of individuals’.48
6 R. W. KHALAF

An important example that echoes this shift is the Recommendation on the Historic
Urban Landscape (HUL), which explains, ‘conservation has become a strategy to achieve
a balance between urban growth and quality of life on a sustainable basis’.49 A further
example is the theme of the 40th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention, which
was World Heritage and Sustainable Development: The Role of Local Communities,50
whilst the Policy for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the
Processes of the World Heritage Convention insists on ‘the full respect and participation
of all stakeholders and rights holders, including indigenous peoples and local
communities’.51 Lastly, the Warsaw Recommendation on Recovery and Reconstruction
of Cultural Heritage recognizes ‘the legitimate aspiration of concerned communities to
overcome the trauma of conflicts [..] by reconstructing [..] their cities [..] as a means to [..]
lay the conditions for a sustainable [..] recovery’.52 These changing attitudes suggest that
future guidelines on the reconstruction of cultural heritage, including World Heritage,
will necessarily embrace sustainability goals.

Sustainability
Sustainability means ‘the ability to last or continue for a long time’.53 New development is
sustainable if it is planned, designed and constructed on the basis of thoughtful decision-
making that accounts for the needs of current generations while limiting consumption
(e.g., energy, resources) and maximizing durability so that future generations can meet
their needs as well. This general definition was introduced in the United Nations Report of
the World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, also
known as the 1987 Brundtland Report.54 Sustainable development has three pillars that
were consolidated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(known as the Earth Summit) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 – i.e., ‘environmental
protection, economic growth, and social equity’ – but one may argue that it now includes
‘quality of life, geo-cultural identity and diversity’, which, together, form ‘a fourth “pillar”:
cultural continuity’.55 The concept of sustainability, therefore, embraces both change (new
development) and continuity (especially of culture).
Not only can culture be a distinct dimension (or pillar), but it can also be ‘a transversal
thread, which runs through the economic, social and environmental dimensions’56 of
sustainable development. UNESCO strongly advocates that culture can ‘enable truly
sustainable development’ especially ‘when a people centred and placed-based approach
is integrated into development programmes and peace-building initiatives’ to ‘promote
respect for diversity, the transmission and continuity of values, and inclusiveness’.57 This
position underpins the Culture in City Reconstruction and Recovery (CURE) Framework,
which was developed jointly with the World Bank. It builds on existing frameworks and
roadmaps, notably the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
In September 2015, the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit adopted
this Agenda, which contains 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets
that are ‘integrated and indivisible, global in nature and universally applicable’.58 They
build on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), launched in the year 2000 by the
United Nations (until 2015), and the Rio+20 outcomes. Unlike the MDGs, however, the
SDGs explicitly include a target dedicated to heritage under SDG 11, namely target 11.4,
which calls for making ‘cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and
 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 7

sustainable’ by strengthening ‘efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and
natural heritage’.59 Although reconstruction is nowhere mentioned, one may argue that
it is part of the 2030 Agenda because ‘countries in situations of conflict’ and ‘post-
conflict countries’ deserve ‘special attention’.60
UNESCO acknowledges that all SDGs ‘are connected’,61 but the Culture Sector gives
special attention to SDG 11. A case in point is the CURE Framework. Its stated aim is ‘to
help make cities more inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable’.62 Generally speaking,
there is growing recognition that culture and heritage should contribute to achieving
SDGs, but ‘the heritage community is largely focused on Goal 11 [..] in particular, target
11.4ʹ, which is indeed ‘a seriously missed opportunity.’63 The other SDGs and targets are
also important. This holds true in a post-conflict scenario. For example, if ‘quality
education’, ‘learning opportunities’ (SDG 4), ‘full and productive employment and
decent work for all’ (SDG 8), and ‘justice for all’ (SDG 16)64 are not available, refugees
who have settled abroad may not return to their cities – even if cultural heritage assets
have been preserved or reconstructed. To have a comfortable urban life, they need
security, social and spatial justice, housing, facilities and public services, such as schools,
healthcare, sanitation, clean water supply, electricity, transport, and ‘material benefits,
not only symbolic ones’.65 Lack of work is often the main reason why people choose not
to return to their cities.66 The road to recovery is easier ‘the sooner people can start to
earn an income’.67 Cultural heritage reconstruction, therefore, must not be dissociated
from the overall needs of contemporary urban life in the broader city context. If it is
dissociated, it cannot be sustainable.
Sustainable development materializes at the local level, which is why the localization
of SDGs and targets is key to their successful implementation.68 Localization is a bottom-
up approach that starts with the existing physical, social, economic conditions of cities
and people and then works with these conditions to meet needs and priorities.
Governments, therefore, must understand the reality on the ground and identify local
needs and priorities. Stakeholders, capacities and resources whether technical, institu-
tional, financial or natural must also be identified.
A stakeholder-driven approach to reconstruction can maximize participation and
inclusion; it is better than donor-driven and contractor-driven approaches because
donors and contractors may not take the needs of people into account.69 The vision
for recovery ‘has to be shared amongst all stakeholders and be locally rooted’ so that
reconstruction can be sustainable.70 It is useful to make a list of names, needs, roles and
responsibilities, and to determine the prioritization and sequencing of needs, including
humanitarian and development needs. Internally displaced persons and refugees (men
and women) should be consulted and involved through various means of communica-
tion, such as open information sessions, workshops, Internet links, and social media.
People can be involved in project implementation as well, for example, by providing
craft skills and receiving payment in return (i.e., cash-for-work), which would help
accelerate their recovery and reduce their dependency on external support.71 This is
an example of how culture and intangible cultural heritage can create jobs.
It is particularly difficult to recover after prolonged conflict because conflict ‘trans-
forms’ people.72 It makes people vulnerable. An effective way to build resilience as
discussed in the first section of this article is to enable continuity of culture and
familiarity, another is to change conditions for the better. Build Back Better (BBB) aims
8 R. W. KHALAF

at improving the socio-economic conditions of people, such as regenerating livelihoods

and establishing stronger governance systems, as well as improving physical conditions
to create ‘a new state of normalcy that is resilient and sustainable’.73 BBB does not mean
abandoning local or traditional knowledge in relation to construction technologies,
techniques or craft skills, nor does it mean abandoning resources. It means strengthen-
ing resilience, including that of physical conditions, which can be done through tradi-
tional and/or modern knowledge and resources, for example, to upgrade infrastructure
or retrofit buildings. Resilience is important because it contributes to cities’ long-term
sustainability.
Salvaged materials and elements, structural performance, local human and institutional
capacities, contemporary regulations (e.g., building codes, safety standards), quality of
documentation (e.g., available drawings and plans, satellite imagery to assess damage),
and cultural significance (i.e., all identified heritage values) are some important matters to
take into account when making decisions to BBB so that the reconstructed cultural heritage
is not only resilient, but also appropriate and sympathetic. Every decision is inevitably of its
time, based on existing information, but it ‘should have a long-term vision’ and be ‘relevant
to larger sustainable development goals’.74 BBB ‘in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruc-
tion’ is actually Priority 4 of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030,
adopted at the Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in
March 2015.75 Disaster risk reduction76 is a means to achieving sustainable
development.77 This explains why the Sendai Framework and the Agenda for Sustainable
Development are strategically linked to one another and to the New Urban Agenda.78

Concluding Remarks and Lessons Learned

What to continue and what to change in a city becomes a critical question after armed
conflict because it often comes with deliberate violence, devastating destruction, mur-
derous death, and prolonged suffering. The answer may seem straightforward to the
reader of this article: continue the ‘good’ from the deep past (pre-conflict) and change
the ‘bad’ from the recent past (conflict) in the present for a better future.
However, the reality is not so clear-cut. Sometimes the presence of the ‘bad’ in the
present can be more culturally significant than its absence. For example, the Genbaku
Dome in Japan was preserved as a ruin and later inscribed on the World Heritage List as
an expression of ‘hope for world peace and the ultimate elimination of all nuclear
weapons’.79 In this case, the physical evidence of destruction and the memories it
evokes became part of Japanese cultural heritage and World Heritage.
In other cases, for example in the MENA region, reconstruction is needed more than
preservation to resume urban life, without necessarily choosing to forget the painful
consequences of armed conflict. For this reason, this article explored the nexus between
continuity, change, and sustainability to shine a light on reconstruction at city level.
Special attention was given to cultural heritage reconstruction because clear guidelines
for hands-on-practice are still lacking.
Ten practical lessons are presented below to contribute to the elaboration of guide-
lines on the reconstruction of cultural heritage, including World Heritage. These lessons
move away from long-held classical views and intellectual taboos to keep up with
twenty-first century roadmaps.
 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 9

(1) Although conservation is currently understood as management of change, it

should rather be management of continuity and change. If culture, including
heritage, is to become a cornerstone of sustainable development, surely conserva-
tion should aim at sustaining culture through continuity of values, functions, uses,
practices, craft skills, familiar connections, and not only at controlling change;
(2) Cultural heritage reflects the choices that people make to meet their needs over
time. People choose what, and how much, to continue and to change in the
selective process of heritage-making;
(3) Both continuity and change can strengthen the resilience and sustainability of
people and cities;
(4) The sense of what is resilient, sustainable, sympathetic, appropriate, and culturally
significant is context-specific;
(5) The above-mentioned five concepts should be in focus to help manage continuity
and change. They should be part of the shared vision for recovery and recon-
struction from the outset;
(6) Cultural heritage reconstruction does not simply mean ‘to build again as closely
as possible to a documented earlier form, using new materials’80. It is an
opportunity to Build Back Better (BBB) and to implement Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs);
(7) Understanding the reality on the ground, the needs and priorities of people, the
values they attribute to cultural heritage (including Outstanding Universal Value
in the context of World Heritage), and the potential impacts of proposals for
reconstruction can help evaluate alternative solutions, specify mitigation mea-
sures, and enable thoughtful decision-making on what, exactly, to continue and
to change, and how to localize SDGs and BBB;
(8) If the reconstructed cultural heritage is built back better and integrates SDGs, it
will most likely be distinguishable from the original, thus identifiable to prevent
deception. The prevention of deception (honesty) is the only legitimate reason
for distinguishability. Pure information can be used to enhance the legibility of
reconstruction work through mechanisms such as informational panels or
websites;
(9) The relevant people (communities, rights-holders, and stakeholders) to consult and
involve in cultural heritage reconstruction should be identified as early as possible.
Their consultation and participation in decision-making, program preparation, plan-
ning, design, and implementation can better achieve the goal of sustainable devel-
opment. Different means of consultation and communication should be explored
such as Internet links, social media, and workshops;
(10) Cultural heritage reconstruction should be an integral part of the city’s overall
urban revitalization, development and planning framework.

Cultural heritage reconstruction is a complicated issue indeed, and it must be kept in

mind that cultural heritage is inherently ‘dissonant’81 and becomes ‘more than ever’ ‘a
site of contestation and dissonance’82 after conflict, particularly civil war. There is
a possibility that its reconstruction may create new forms of tension, reinforce division
and social fragmentation, and prolong violence rather than bring people together to
foster mutual understanding, healing, social cohesion, peace, and sustainable
10 R. W. KHALAF

development. For example, its reconstruction can be seen as an indicator of dominance

of one ethnic group over another rather than a symbol of reconciliation or unity among
groups. There is also a possibility that governments may give precedence to one
dimension of sustainable development, such as the economic benefits of tourism, over
other factors to suit their national agendas and interests. Cultural heritage reconstruc-
tion can be used as a means to many ends, especially political ones.
Future guidelines, therefore, must carefully address the issues of people engagement,
contestation, negotiation, and consensus building, particularly in cities where many
ethnic groups exist and where different (external) agencies and donors, such as
UNESCO and the World Bank, are involved technically and/or financially. Although
guidelines – even dedicated ones – cannot guarantee effective solutions, or quality
reconstruction, or the recovery and return of all internally displaced persons and
refugees to their cities, they can help reduce ambiguity in policy, enable consistency
and transparency in decision-making, assist project design and execution in practice,
and improve some people’s lives in reality.

Notes
1. Lamprakos, “The Idea of the Historic City,” 29.
2. Bandarin and Van Oers, The Historic Urban Landscape, 111; see also Van Oers, “The Economic
Feasibility of Heritage Preservation,” 310.
3. ICOMOS, The Venice Charter.
4. UNESCO, Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape.
5. Devarajan, An Exposition of the New Strategy, 15; see also Devarajan and Mottaghi, The
Economics of Post-Conflict Reconstruction in Middle East and North Africa.
6. ICOMOS New Zealand, ICOMOS New Zealand Charter, 10. See also the definition of restora-
tion on that page. Similar definitions can be found elsewhere (e.g., Australia ICOMOS, The
Australia ICOMOS Charter, article 1.8).
7. Khalaf, “A Proposal,” 44.
8. Stanley-Price, “The Thread of Continuity,” 1.
9. UNISDR, Sendai Framework.
10. UN, Transforming our World.
11. UN, New Urban Agenda, paragraphs 6, 9, 13, 67, 77, 78, 128 and pages 50–51.
12. UNESCO, “UAE, UNESCO and Iraq conclude historic $50m partnership” (website). A video is
included to show an aerial view of the devastating destruction in Mosul. Other videos are
available on YouTube.
13. UN-Habitat and UNESCO, “Press release: UN-Habitat and UNESCO launch plan” (website).
14. See note 12 above.
15. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, “UNESCO’s Flagship Initiative,” 61.
16. UNESCO, “UNESCO and UN-Habitat host first public forum on reconstruction” (website); see
also UN-Habitat and UNESCO, “Press release: UN-Habitat and UNESCO presented the initial
planning” (website).
17. UNESCO, “UNESCO and World Bank use culture for building back better” (website).
18. UNESCO and The World Bank, Culture in City Reconstruction and Recovery, 3, 8.
19. Pérez de Armiñán, “Opening Remarks,” 4.
20. Many sources of literature and policy documents repeat that guidelines and/or guidance are
needed. To name a few: Pérez de Armiñán, “Opening Remarks,” 3; Rössler, “Editorial,” 5;
Khalaf, “World Heritage Policy,” 8; UNESCO, Warsaw Recommendation, 9; UNESCO and The
World Bank, Culture in City Reconstruction and Recovery, 35, 54. SIDE NOTE: In 2018, the
World Heritage Committee requested ‘the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies
 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 11

to continue the reflection’ and encouraged ‘the ongoing cooperation with the World Bank
and with United Nations agencies in addressing the challenges of World Heritage recovery
and reconstruction’ (see UNESCO World Heritage Committee, “Decisions Adopted during
the 42nd Session”, Decision 42 COM 7.27.28).
21. Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country, 60–62.
22. Rodwell, “The Historic Urban Landscape,” 192–193 (in reference to Raymond Williams).
23. UNESCO, Convention Concerning the Protection, articles 1, 3.
24. UNESCO, Convention for the Safeguarding, article 2.
25. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Operational Guidelines, paragraph 26.
26. Lynch, What Time is This Place? 39.
27. Dewi, “Rethinking Architectural Heritage Conservation,” 588; see also Weise, “Nepal: Cultural
Continuity,” 109; UNESCO, UNESCO’s Response to Protect Culture in Crises, 3; EU, WB, UNDP,
GFDRR and ACP, Proceedings and Knowledge Report, 174.
28. GFDRR, WB, EU and UNDG, Post Disaster Needs Assessment, 3.
29. Kalman, “Destruction, Mitigation, and Reconciliation,” 540; see also Thomson, “Authenticity
and The Post-Conflict Reconstruction,” 66; Khalaf, “World Heritage Policy,” 5.
30. See note 12 above.
31. Harrison, Heritage: Critical Approaches, 165.
32. ICOMOS, The Venice Charter, articles 9, 12, 15.
33. Ibid, article 9.
34. Hardy (ed.), The Venice Charter Revisited, xvii.
35. Semes, “New Buildings among Old,” 8.
36. Hall (ed.), Towards World Heritage, 176.
37. Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country, 280 (quoting Morris).
38. Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 99.
39. Mager, “Introduction: Selected Pasts, Designed Memories,” 5.
40. Semes, “New Buildings among Old,” 8. The author explains that to build in a historicist style
today in a given place can be deemed appropriate or inappropriate, but either way, it is not
false history; an architectural ‘style is like a literary genre’ that ‘may have application in and
relevance to any number of times and places.’ See also Khalaf, “A Proposal,” 41.
41. See note 40 above.
42. Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 94; see also Muñoz Viñas, “Beyond
Authenticity,” 37–38; Khalaf, “A Proposal,” 40–44. SIDE NOTE: It is important to explain to
the reader here that it is the determination of cultural significance (rather than authenticity)
that can clarify whether a place is what it is claimed to be or not – i.e., whether it is heritage
or not. A reconstructed place can be culturally significant even if preservation purists
believe it lacks authenticity. In fact, the notion of authenticity is not mentioned in the
internationally recognized Burra Charter (see Australia ICOMOS, The Australia ICOMOS
Charter). Moreover, it is the Statement of Cultural Significance that captures all the heritage
values and attributes/character-defining elements of a place and serves as the basis for its
management. This holds true in the context of World Heritage. Experts recommended, in
discussion on linking universal and local values held in the Netherlands in 2003, that ‘all
heritage values’ must be acknowledged and catered for because it is not good manage-
ment practice ‘to assert the primacy of World Heritage values by ignoring or denying other
valid elements of cultural significance’ (see Sullivan, “Local Involvement and Traditional
Practices,” 52–53). Accordingly, no value should be edited out. In 2013, a World Heritage
Resource Manual was published acknowledging: ‘It is not practical to manage attributes
that carry OUV in isolation from those carrying other values [..] authorities preparing
management plans should formulate a comprehensive Statement of Significance [..]
which captures OUV and these other values and use it as the basis for managing the
property’ (see UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN, Managing Cultural World Heritage, 137).
Ironically, the provision of a comprehensive Statement of Significance in addition to the
Statement of OUV is not a requirement in the current nomination process (see UNESCO
World Heritage Centre, Operational Guidelines). A recent study suggests making it
12 R. W. KHALAF

a requirement when nominating reconstructed cultural properties for inscription on the

World Heritage List in the future (see Khalaf, “Roadmap,” 199), but, in hindsight, it should
become a requirement for all nominated properties, whether cultural and/or natural, to
underpin their protection and management and to guide decisions about the advisability of
proposals for change, such as infrastructure development. One may add that this suggestion
is in line with the Recommendation on the HUL, which promotes the recognition of all
heritage values, and therefore all layers of significance, to manage change more effectively
(see UNESCO, Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape).
43. Holtorf, “Is The Past a Non-Renewable Resource?” 290.
44. Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country, 363; see also Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of
Conservation, 151.
45. Khalaf, “World Heritage Policy,” 8.
46. Cleere, Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage, 129. SIDE NOTE: The year 2019 marks the
25th anniversary of the Nara Document, the 5th anniversary of the Nara+20 Document, and
the 19th anniversary of the Riga Charter. This is a good time for the international heritage
community to consider shifting the strongly held Ruskinian focus on authenticity (whose
meaning continues to be revisited, redefined, and stretched) towards more practical con-
cepts that are especially relevant in continuously inhabited cities, such as the ones written
in Italics in Concluding Remarks and Lessons Learned at the end of this article.
47. For an overview, see Khalaf, “Roadmap,” 192.
48. Muñoz Viñas, Contemporary Theory of Conservation, 192.
49. UNESCO, Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscape, Item 3.
50. UNESCO, Proceedings of the Closing Event of the Celebration of the 40th Anniversary; see also
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, World Heritage n°65 – Sustainable Development.
51. UNESCO, Policy for the Integration, 3; see also Larsen and Logan (eds.), World Heritage and
Sustainable Development.
52. UNESCO, Warsaw Recommendation, 2.
53. UNESCO, Policy for the Integration, 17.
54. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future.
55. Rodwell, “Theory and Practice in Sustainable Urban Development,” 9.
56. Bandarin, “Culture: Key to the Sustainability of Cities,” 13.
57. UNESCO, The Hangzhou Declaration, 5, 9; see also UNESCO, Culture: Urban Future; Bandarin,
Hosagrahar and Albernaz, “Why Development Needs Culture.”
58. UN, Transforming our World, p.3.
59. Ibid, p.24.
60. Ibid, paragraph 22, see also paragraphs 35, 42, 56, 64; see also UN, New Urban Agenda,
paragraph 30.
61. UNESCO, UNESCO Moving Forward the 2030 Agenda, 1.
62. UNESCO and The World Bank, Culture in City Reconstruction and Recovery, 9 (last sentence on
that page) see also pages 3, 27, 28, 54.
63. Rodwell, “The Historic Urban Landscape,” 192.
64. See note 10 above.
65. Hoffman, ‘Chapter 15: From Sustainability to Resilience,’ 354.
66. Devarajan and Mottaghi, The Economics of Post-Conflict Reconstruction, 30. The authors explain,
‘For example, in post-war Bosnia, many refugees did not return to their home community due
to lack of employment opportunities.’ See also Calame, “Post-War Reconstruction”, 35.
67. Schneider, Sustainable Reconstruction in Urban Areas, 63.
68. GTF, UN-Habitat and UNDP, Roadmap for Localizing the SDGs.
69. Schneider, Sustainable Reconstruction in Urban Areas, 60.
70. Barakat “Post-War Reconstruction and Development,” 11; see also Devarajan and Mottaghi,
The Economics of Post-Conflict Reconstruction, 43.
71. Schneider, Sustainable Reconstruction in Urban Areas, 63; see also Isakhan and Meskell,
“UNESCO’s project to “Revive the Spirit of Mosul””. After having conducted 47 interviews
with Syrians and Iraqis about heritage reconstruction, the authors conclude that, despite
 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 13

divergent and competing views, the local population should participate in, and have own-
ership over, every stage of the reconstruction process to achieve a successful outcome.
72. Holtzman, Elwan, and Scott, Post-Conflict Reconstruction, 4.
73. Mannakkara and Wilkinson, “Build Back Better,” 108; see also Mannakkara and Wilkinson,
“Re-Conceptualising “Building Back Better”” to gain a good understanding of the principles
of BBB in post-disaster recovery, which are also relevant to post-conflict recovery. See also
EU, WB, UNDP, GFDRR and ACP, Proceedings and Knowledge Report.
74. Jigyasu, “Long-Term Cultural Impacts,” 22.
75. UNISDR, Sendai Framework; see also UNISDR, Build Back Better in Recovery, Rehabilitation and
Reconstruction.
76. It is noteworthy that ‘the scope of disaster risk reduction has been broadened significantly
to focus on both natural and man-made hazards [..]’ as explained in UNISDR, Sendai
Framework, 5.
77. UNISDR, Sendai Framework, paragraphs 5, 19h, 48f; see also Stanton-Geddes and Soz,
Promoting Disaster Resilient Cultural Heritage.
78. UN, Transforming our World, SDG 11.b and SDG 13.1; UN, New Urban Agenda, paragraphs 6,
9, 13, 67, 77, 78, 128 and pages 50–51.
79. UNESCO, “Hiroshima Peace Memorial” (website).
80. See note 6 above.
81. Ashworth and Tunbridge, Dissonant Heritage.
82. Viejo-Rose, “Reconstructing Heritage,” 126.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Funding
My research is independent and self-funded.

Notes on contributor
Roha W. Khalaf holds a Ph.D. in Aménagement (Environmental Design) from Université de
Montréal, a Master of Architecture, a Bachelor of Architectural Studies with a minor in French
literature and a Certificate in Teaching Skills from Carleton University, Canada. Her experience
includes architectural and urban design, cultural heritage conservation and policy-making.
Reshaping heritage reconstruction policy is her main research interest.

ORCID
Roha W. Khalaf http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5779-7079

Bibliography
Ashworth, G. J., and J. E. Tunbridge. Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the past as a Resource
in Conflict. Chichester: Wiley, 1996.
Australia, I. C. O. M. O. S. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance: The Burra
Charter. 2013 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://australia.icomos.org/wp-content
/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf
14 R. W. KHALAF

Bandarin, F. “Culture: Key to the Sustainability of Cities.” In World Heritage N°81 – Urban Heritage,
8–17. Paris: UNESCO; 2016, [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018, https://whc.unesco.org/en/
review/81/
Bandarin, F., J. Hosagrahar, and F. S. Albernaz. “Why Development Needs Culture.” Journal of
Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 1, no. 1 (2011): 15–25. doi:10.1108/
20441261111129906.
Bandarin, F., and R. Van Oers. The Historic Urban Landscape: Managing Heritage in an Urban
Century. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
Barakat, S. “Post-War Reconstruction and Development: Coming of Age.” In After the Conflict:
Reconstruction and Development in the Aftermath of War, edited by S. Barakat, 8–32. London:
I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2005.
Calame, J. “Post-War Reconstruction: Concerns, Models and Approaches.” Macro Center Working
Papers, Paper 20, 2005 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://docs.rwu.edu/cmpd_work
ing_papers/20
Cleere, H. F. Approaches to the Archaeological Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Devarajan, S. An Exposition of the New Strategy: Promoting Peace and Stability in the Middle East and
North Africa. Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Economic Monitor. Washington D.C.: World
Bank Group, 2016. [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. https://openknowledge.worldbank.
org/handle/10986/23773.
Devarajan, S., and L. Mottaghi. The Economics of Post-Conflict Reconstruction in Middle East and
North Africa. Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Economic Monitor. Washington D.C.: World
Bank Group, 2017. [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. https://openknowledge.worldbank.
org/handle/10986/26305.
Dewi, C. “Rethinking Architectural Heritage Conservation in Post-Disaster Context.” International
Journal of Heritage Studies 23, no. 6 (2017): 587–600. doi:10.1080/13527258.2017.1300927.
EU (European Union), WB (World Bank), UNDP (United Nations Development Programme),
GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery) and ACP (African, Caribbean
and Pacific Group of States). Proceedings and Knowledge Report: World Reconstruction
Conference 3 – Promoting Resilience Through Post-Crisis Recovery, Brussels, Belgium, June 6–8,
2017 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/
librarypage/climate-and-disaster-resilience-/promoting-resilience-through-post-crisis-recovery.
html
GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery), WB (World Bank), EU (European
Union) and UNDG (United Nations Development Group). Post Disaster Needs Assessment
(PDNA) Guidelines Volume B – Culture: English. 2014 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018.
https://www.recoveryplatform.org/pdna/
GTF (Global Taskforce of Local and Regional Governments), UN-Habitat (United Nations Human
Settlements Programme) and UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Roadmap for
Localizing the SDGs: Implementation and Monitoring at Subnational Level. 2016 [online]. Accessed
11 December, 2018. https://unhabitat.org/roadmap-for-localizing-the-sdgs-implementation-and
-monitoring-at-subnational-level/
Hall, M., ed. Towards World Heritage: International Origins of the Preservation Movement 1870–1930.
Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2011.
Hardy, M., ed. The Venice Charter Revisited: Modernism, Conservation and Tradition in the 21st
Century. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008.
Harrison, R. Heritage: Critical Approaches. New York: Routledge, 2013.
Hoffman, L. M. “Chapter 15: From Sustainability to Resilience: Why Locality Matters.” In From
Sustainable to Resilient Cities: Global Concerns and Urban Efforts (Research in Urban Sociology,
Volume 14), edited by W. G. Holt, 341–357. Bingley U.K.: Emerald Group Publishing Limited,
2014.
Holtorf, C. “Is the past a Non-Renewable Resource?” In Destruction and Conservation of Cultural
Property, edited by R. Layton, P. G. Stone, and J. Thomas, 286–297. London: Routledge, 2001.
Holtzman, S., A. Elwan, and C. Scott. Post-Conflict Reconstruction: The Role of the World Bank.
Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group, 1998. [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://
 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 15

documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/175771468198561613/Post-conflict-reconstruction-the-
role-of-the-World-Bank.
ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites). The Venice Charter: International Charter
for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. 1964 [online]. Accessed 11
December, 2018. http://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf
ICOMOS New Zealand. ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural
Heritage Value. 2010 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. https://www.icomos.org/images/
DOCUMENTS/Charters/ICOMOS_NZ_Charter_2010_FINAL_11_Oct_2010.pdf
Isakhan, B., and L. Meskell. “UNESCO’s Project to ‘Revive the Spirit of Mosul’: Iraqi and Syrian
Opinion on Heritage Reconstruction after the Islamic State.” International Journal of Heritage
Studies (2019). doi:10.1080/13527258.2019.1578988.
Jigyasu, R. “Long-Term Cultural Impacts of Disaster Decision-Making.” International Journal of
Architectural Research 7, no. 3 (2013): 14–23.
Kalman, H. “Destruction, Mitigation, and Reconciliation of Cultural Heritage.” International Journal
of Heritage Studies 23, no. 6 (2017): 538–555. doi:10.1080/13527258.2017.1289475.
Khalaf, R. W. “A Proposal to Apply the Historic Urban Landscape Approach to Reconstruction in the
World Heritage Context.” The Historic Environment: Policy & Practice 9, no. 1 (2018): 39–52.
doi:10.1080/17567505.2018.1424615.
Khalaf, R. W. “Roadmap for the Nomination of Reconstructed Cultural Properties for Inscription on
the UNESCO World Heritage List.” Heritage 1, no. 2 (2018): 189–206. doi:10.3390/
heritage1020013.
Khalaf, R. W. “World Heritage Policy on Reconstruction: From Exceptional Case to Conservation
Treatment.” International Journal of Cultural Policy (2018). doi:10.1080/10286632.2018.1429423.
Lamprakos, M. “The Idea of the Historic City.” Change Over Time 4, no. 1 (2014): 8–38. doi:10.1353/
cot.2014.0004.
Larsen, P. B., and W. Logan, eds. World Heritage and Sustainable Development: New Directions in
World Heritage Management. New York: Routledge, 2018.
Lowenthal, D. The past Is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Lynch, K. What Time Is This Place? Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972.
Mager, T. “Introduction: Selected Pasts, Designed Memories.” In Architecture Re-Performed: The
Politics of Reconstruction, edited by T. M. Surrey, 1–17. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Limited,
2015.
Mannakkara, S., and S. Wilkinson. “Build Back Better: Lessons from Sri Lanka’s Recovery from the
2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami.” International Journal of Architectural Research 7, no. 3 (2013):
108–121.
Mannakkara, S., and S. Wilkinson. “Re-Conceptualising ‘Building Back Better’ to Improve Post-
Disaster Recovery.” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 7, no. 3 (2014):
327–341. doi:10.1108/IJMPB-10-2013-0054.
Muñoz Viñas, S. Contemporary Theory of Conservation. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann,
2005.
Muñoz Viñas, S. “Beyond Authenticity.” In Art, Conservation and Authenticities: Material, Concept,
Context, edited by E. Hermens and T. Fiske, 33–38. London: Archetype Press, 2009.
Pérez de Armiñán, A. “Opening Remarks by Mr. Alfredo Pérez de Armiñán, Assistant Director-
General for Culture of UNESCO, on the Occasion of the Expert Meeting on Post-Conflict
Reconstruction in the Context of the Middle East. Room VIII – UNESCO Headquarters.
18 June 2015. ADG/CLT/2015/22-Original: English.” 2015 [online]. Accessed 11 December,
2018. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002340/234036e.pdf
Rodwell, D. “Theory and Practice in Sustainable Urban Development.” Historic Environment 23, no.
1 (2011): 8–14.
Rodwell, D. “The Historic Urban Landscape and the Geography of Urban Heritage.” The Historic
Environment: Policy & Practice 9, no. 3–4 (2018): 180–206. doi:10.1080/17567505.2018.1517140.
Rössler, M. Editorial, World Heritage N°86 – Reconstruction and Recovery. Vol. 5, Paris, UNESCO, 2018,
[online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018, https://whc.unesco.org/en/review/86/
16 R. W. KHALAF

Schneider, C. Sustainable Reconstruction in Urban Areas: A Handbook. Vadianstrass: Swiss Resource

Centre and Consultancies for Development (SKAT) and International Federation of Red Cross
and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), 2012.
Semes, S. W. “New Buildings among Old: Historicism and the Search for an Architecture of Our
Time.” American Arts Quarterly 25, no. 2 (2008). [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://
www.nccsc.net/essays/new-buildings-among-old.
Stanley-Price, N. “The Thread of Continuity: Cultural Heritage in Post-War Recovery.” In Cultural
Heritage in Postwar Recovery: Papers from the ICCROM FORUM Held on October 4 –6,2005, edited
by N. Stanley-Price, 1–16. Rome: ICCROM, 2007.
Stanton-Geddes, Z., and S. A. Soz. Promoting Disaster Resilient Cultural Heritage (English).
Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group, 2017. [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://
documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/696061511882383371/Promoting-disaster-resilient-
cultural-heritage.
Sullivan, S. “Local Involvement and Traditional Practices in the World Heritage System.” In World
Heritage Papers N°13 – Linking Universal and Local Values: Managing a Sustainable Future for
World Heritage, 49–55. Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre; 2004, [online]. Accessed 11
December, 2018, http://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/4969
Thomson, R. G. “Authenticity and the Post-Conflict Reconstruction of Historic Sites.” CRM: the
Journal of Heritage Stewardship 5, no. 1 (2008): 64–80.
UN (United Nations). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/
70/1. 2015 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/con
tent/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf
UN. New Urban Agenda – Habitat III. 2017 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://habitat3.
org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). Convention Concerning
the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. 1972 [online]. Accessed 11 December,
2018. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf
UNESCO. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. 2003 [online].
Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/convention
UNESCO. Recommendation on the Historic Urban landscape (HUL), Including a Glossary of Definitions.
2011 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=
48857&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
UNESCO. Proceedings of the Closing Event of the Celebration of the 40th Anniversary of the World
Heritage Convention 6–8 November 2012 – Kyoto International Conference Centre, Kyoto, Japan.
Paris: UNESCO-WHC, 2013. [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://whc.unesco.org/en/
news/1077/.
UNESCO. The Hangzhou Declaration: Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development
Policies. 2013 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/
MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/images/FinalHangzhouDeclaration20130517.pdf
UNESCO. Policy for the Integration of a Sustainable Development Perspective into the Processes of the
World Heritage Convention. 2015 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. https://whc.unesco.org/
en/sustainabledevelopment/
UNESCO. Culture: Urban Future. Global Report on Culture for Sustainable Urban Development. 2016
[online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002459/
245999e.pdf
UNESCO. UNESCO’s Response to Protect Culture in Crises #Unite4Heritage. 2016 [online]. Accessed 11
December, 2018. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000244984
UNESCO. UNESCO Moving Forward the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2017 [online].
Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002477/247785e.pdf
UNESCO. “Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome).” 2018 [online]. Accessed 11 December,
2018. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/775
UNESCO. “UAE, UNESCO and Iraq conclude historic $50m partnership to reconstruct Mosul’s iconic
al-Nouri Mosque and al-Hadba Minaret.” 2018 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. https://en.
 THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT: POLICY & PRACTICE 17

unesco.org/news/uae-unesco-and-iraq-conclude-historic-50m-partnership-reconstruct-mosul
-s-iconic-al-nouri
UNESCO. “UNESCO and UN-Habitat host first public forum on reconstruction of Mosul’s Old City.”
2018 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-and-habitat-
host-first-public-forum-reconstruction-mosuls-old-city
UNESCO. “UNESCO and World Bank use culture for building back better after conflict and disasters
in cities.” 2018 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-and-
world-bank-use-culture-building-back-better-after-conflict-and-disasters-cities
UNESCO. Warsaw Recommendation on Recovery and Reconstruction of Cultural Heritage. 2018
[online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://whc.unesco.org/en/events/1442/
UNESCO and The World Bank. Culture in City Reconstruction and Recovery. Paris/Washington:
UNESCO/The World Bank, 2018. [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. https://openknow
ledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30733.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. World Heritage N°65 – Sustainable Development. Paris: UNESCO,
2012. [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. https://whc.unesco.org/en/review/65.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention. 2017 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://whc.unesco.org/en/
guidelines/
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. “UNESCO’s Flagship Initiative to Revive the Spirit of Mosul, Iraq.”
In World Heritage N°90 – Success Stories, 58–61. Paris: UNESCO, 2019 [online]. Accessed 8
February, 2019. https://whc.unesco.org/en/review/90
UNESCO World Heritage Committee. “Decisions Adopted during the 42nd Session of the World
Heritage Committee (Manama, 2018). WHC/18/42.COM/18.” 2018 [online]. Accessed 11
December, 2018. https://whc.unesco.org/archive/2018/whc18-42com-18-en.pdf
UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN. Managing Cultural World Heritage – World Heritage Resource
Manual. Paris: UNESCO, 2013. [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://whc.unesco.org/en/
managing-cultural-world-heritage/.
UN-Habitat and UNESCO. “Press Release: UN-Habitat and UNESCO launch plan to reconstruct
Mosul.” 2018 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/un-
habitat-and-unesco-launch-plan-reconstruct-mosul-enar
UN-Habitat and UNESCO. “Press Release: UN-Habitat and UNESCO presented the Initial Planning
Framework for Reconstruction of Mosul.” 2018 [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. https://
reliefweb.int/report/iraq/un-habitat-and-unesco-presented-initial-planning-framework-
reconstruction-mosul-enar
UNISDR. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. 2015 [online]. Accessed 11
December, 2018. https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/43291
UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). Build Back Better in Recovery,
Rehabilitation and Reconstruction. Consultative Version. 2017 [online]. Accessed 11
December, 2018. https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/53213
Van Oers, R. “The Economic Feasibility of Heritage Preservation.” In A Companion to Heritage Studies,
edited by W. Logan, M. N. Craith, and U. Kockel, 307–321. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2015.
Viejo-Rose, D. “Reconstructing Heritage in the Aftermath of Civil War: Re-Visioning the Nation and
the Implications of International Involvement.” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 7, no. 2
(2013): 125–148. doi:10.1080/17502977.2012.714241.
Weise, K. “Nepal: Cultural Continuity in Post Gorkha Earthquake Rehabilitation.” In ICOMOS
Heritage at Risk: World Report 2014–2015 on Monuments and Sites in Danger, edited by
C. Machat and J. Ziesemer, 102–109. Berlin: Hendrick Bäßler Verlag, 2016.
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1987. [online]. Accessed 11 December, 2018. http://www.un-documents.net/
our-common-future.pdf.