UNESCO'S Memory of the World Programme

(Another principle is that "The Programme seeks to encourage access without discrimination wherever possible" [Edmondson, 2002, section 2.1.3], but this seems inimical to the concept of selection, which is implicit in the concept of significance. This point is not explored in this paper.)

The most sustained criticism to have appeared about the role of significance in the Memory of the World Programme is by Australian conservator Robyn Sloggett (2005). She argues that while the aims of the Programme are praiseworthy, it is flawed because it is based on an inappropriate framework and tool--significance--developed in a different context for different purposes. Significance, successful in the built heritage context, is perhaps "so culturally loaded as to be, at best, an irrelevant and, at worst, a dangerous tool with which to address issues of local or distributed culture?" (p. 114). The application of significance in the Australian Memory of the World Program relies heavily on methodology developed for the museum sector and may not be readily applicable in other sectors. There are, Sloggett maintains, many potential dangers in its use. One is the appropriation of the [program for political purposes: here Sloggett makes the telling point that "the concept of world heritage, a category of democratised heritage, which is so significant as to transcend local or national boundaries, is not a benign, apolitical construct" (p. 118). Another is the difficulty of engaging across international boundaries, such as with material created in a colonial context, applicable to more than one country, and now residing outside the countries in which it was created. A third is how to address cultural value for minority cultures in a program that is based heavily on determining national significance: "Cultural value is not an attribute that can be easily or meaningfully bestowed from beyond the culture; cultural attributes are insider knowledge .... [T]here are many examples where national agendas are best served by the marginalisation or negation of local cultures" (pp. 119-120). Sloggett also notes the lack of protection that registration provides and points to recent experiences with items on the World Heritage List. Perhaps, she suggests, significance is useful only as a risk assessment process assisting in determining priorities for applying resources, determining it "works against the relative and fluid way in which cultural value is often developed and ascribed" (p. 123). Sloggett allows that the Memory of the World Programme is beneficial; assisting with procuring funding and improving awareness of preservation issues, but it must address some intrinsic issues. She concludes: "Heritage is by definition local. The concept of world culture is as anachronistic and problematic as any other globalised agenda" (p. 124). No rejoinder to Sloggett's carefully argued comments has yet appeared in print.

Another issue is that the Memory of the World Programme is not truly international. Its Eurocentric nature is noted by Edmondson in a report on the Asia-Pacific regional program. Of the 120 inscriptions in the international register in 2005, over half (63) were from Europe, with 26 from the Asia-Pacific region, 18 from the Latin America-Caribbean region, 8 from Africa, and 5 from Arab countries. At the country level, Austria had 8 inscriptions and Germany and Russia 7 each, while China had only 4 (Edmondson, 2005, section 4.2). Edmondson also pointed out a European bias in the "Guided Visits" on the MoW website, with only a handful from outside Europe (Edmondson, 2005, section 4.3), and that the program's key working document, the General Guidelines, essential for preparing nominations for national, regional, and international registers, was not available in the languages of many countries. He suggested that the lack of a Chinese translation excludes about one-third of the population of the Asia-Pacific region from Memory of the World registration processes (Edmondson, 2005, section 6.18).