International Conventions

IFC PS 8, paragraph 1: “Consistent with the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, this Performance Standard aims to ensure that clients protect cultural heritage in the course of their project activities. In addition, the requirements of this Performance Standard on a project's use of cultural heritage are based in part on standards set by the Convention on Biological Diversity.”

The opening paragraph of PS 8 introduces the objectives of the PS and references two international conventions: UNESCO's (1972) Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention) and the UN (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This is significant in that it gives these conventions privileged status and authoritative “weight” over other perspectives.

Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention (WHC) speaks to the duty of states parties to the Convention to ensure “the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage which are of outstanding universal value as defined in Articles 1 and 2.” The CBD, signed by 150 government leaders at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, is presumably cited due to Article 8(j), which speaks to the preservation, maintenance, and equitable sharing of the knowledge, innovations, and practices of Indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles. Although the motive of this Article is strictly related to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, it carries over into PS 8, where it speaks to the commercial use of cultural heritage (paragraph 16)—specifically, intangible cultural heritage, which is discussed in further detail below (see also PS 7, GN 49).

The WHC was primarily conceived as an instrument for conservation, where each country pledged to conserve not only World Heritage Sites within its territory but all national heritage (Meskell Reference Meskell2018:71). In reality, the focus has been on those (mostly built heritage) sites that are considered to have outstanding universal value as judged by “global” standards, which are generally the standards of developed nations (Labadi Reference Labadi2015). This statement is significant in that it effectively elevates cultural and natural heritage properties of WHS caliber above all other manifestations of heritage. This emphasis on WHS may create a perception that cultural heritage sites without UNESCO World Heritage status are inferior and expendable and that the perspectives of local communities are less relevant.

Reference to the CBD in PS 8 gives legitimacy to the idea that the cultural heritage of Indigenous Peoples and local communities can be exploited (see also PS 8, paragraph 16) and fails to recognize that, since its ratification in 1992, there have been significant improvements to the rights associated with Indigenous Peoples, such as the Nagoya Protocol (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2011; see Mulrennan and Bussierès [Reference Mulrennan, Bussières and Turner2020] for a detailed review of improvements on the CBD in relation to Indigenous Peoples).

These two foundation documents (WHC and CBD) of PS 8 have been thoroughly examined and critiqued by Labadi (Reference Labadi2015), Meskell (Reference Meskell2018), and Mulrennan and Bussières (Reference Mulrennan, Bussières and Turner2020). We support the view that they inadequately recognize the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and we argue that their prominent place in PS 8 effectively marginalizes most cultural heritage sites.

Intangible Cultural Heritage

IFC PS 8, paragraph 3: “For the purposes of this Performance Standard, cultural heritage refers to . . . (iii) certain instances of intangible forms of culture that are proposed to be used for commercial purposes, such as cultural knowledge, innovations, and practices of communities embodying traditional lifestyles.”

Intangible cultural heritage (ICH) is defined in Article 2 of the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO 2003) as “the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills—as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith—that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage.” For the approach to ICH found in PS 8, its origin can be traced to Article 8(j) of the CBD, which states,

As described above, PS 8 only considers the ICH of local communities if a project proponent proposes to “use” it commercially. If a commercial use is not proposed, the proponent does not need to consider ICH further.

If commercial use of ICH is proposed, paragraph 16 outlines the conditions that must be met. These include informing the local communities of their rights under national law, explaining the scope and nature of the proposed commercial use of their ICH and the potential consequences of such use. Furthermore, the commercial use of ICH cannot proceed unless the proponent enters a process of informed consultation and participation (see PS 1, paragraph 31) using a good-faith negotiation process that results in a documented outcome and provides a fair and equitable sharing of benefits from commercialization of the ICH. PS 7, paragraph 17 echoes the same language but replaces the requirement of a process of informed consultation and participation with a process to obtain the Indigenous Peoples’ free, prior, and informed consent (see UN 2007).

There are several problems with this framework. It does not consider the possibility that the Indigenous People may not be recognized by their national government or that the Indigenous People or local community may have no rights to their ICH under national law. Furthermore, there is a prima facie assumption that the cultural knowledge, innovations, and the traditional practices of a group of people (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) are exclusively defined as a resource that can be used or appropriated by a project proponent, provided a process is followed. This limits cultural heritage to commercializable things that are somehow separable from other facets of history and culture.

Consistent with the preamble to the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, which recognizes “the deep-seated interdependence between the intangible cultural heritage and the tangible cultural and natural heritage” (UNESCO 2003), we argue that cultural heritage in all its manifestations—both tangible and intangible—should be considered equally in the PSs. Specifically, PS 8 should be revised to recognize and document ICH as it relates to the impacts of a proponent's project and not be limited to instances of proposed commercial use (see paragraph 7 of WB Environmental and Social Standard 8: Cultural Heritage; WB 2016).

Furthermore, ownership of ICH by Indigenous Peoples or local communities requires recognition, and a revised PS should address the possibility that communities may be unwilling or unable to share sensitive cultural knowledge with external parties.

Paleontology

IFC PS 8, paragraph 3: “For the purposes of this Performance Standard, cultural heritage refers to (i) tangible forms of cultural heritage, such as tangible moveable or immoveable objects, property, sites, structures, or groups of structures, having . . . paleontological . . . values.”

The definition of “tangible forms cultural heritage” in PS 8 includes paleontological resources, but the term is not defined nor is elaboration offered in its GN (IFC 2012a, 2012b). Based on available information, the inclusion of paleontology in the definition of cultural heritage appears to be a legacy consideration that can trace its origin to OPN 11.03 (WB 1986), which adopts the definition of “cultural property” found in Article 1 of UNESCO's (1970) Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. This definition includes “objects of paleontological interest” (Goodland and Webb Reference Goodland and Webb1987:66).

The World Bank's Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Update Number 8, Cultural Heritage in Environmental Assessment, does not include reference to paleontological resources (WB 1994:3). However, it is found in OP 4.11, the successor to OPN 11.03. WTP62, the companion document to OP 4.11, defines paleontological resources as “deposits of early human, animal or fossilized remains” (Campbell Reference Campbell2009:60, Annex A1; WB 2013a). The current version of PS 8, its GN, and its predecessors materially share the same language with respect to paleontological resources (IFC 2006, 2007b, 2012a, 2012b).

A literal interpretation of PS 8 requires consideration of paleontological remains in any form or context, such as that captured by the definition in WTP62, and would require the expertise of physical anthropologists, palaeontologists, and geologists for successful implementation.

A more “culturally focused” definition of paleontological remains might limit paleontological considerations to fossil hominim remains, paleontological objects that have been incorporated into the material culture of human populations, or paleontological objects and sites with cultural significance (see, for example, Helm et al. Reference Helm, Benoit, Mayor, Cawthra, Penn-Clarke and Rust2019). Given that paleontological resources are not mentioned elsewhere in the PSs, adoption of this interpretation would result in the exclusion of all other forms of paleontological resources.

Purely natural expressions of paleontological remains could fall to PS 6 given that the fossil record is the primary source of information on how biodiversity has changed in deep time, including how past dynamics have led to change and how that may inform decisions now and into the future (see Benson et al. Reference Benson, Butler, Close, Saupe and Robosky2021). A second option would be to keep paleontology within the remit of PS 8 by expanding its scope to include all forms of natural heritage. Implementing either option presents its own unique challenges.

Tangible Cultural Heritage of Indigenous Peoples

IFC PS 8, paragraph 5: “The requirements of this Performance Standard do not apply to cultural heritage of Indigenous Peoples; Performance Standard 7 describes those requirements.”

Performance Standards 7 and 8 contain contradictory language that leaves the status of tangible forms of Indigenous cultural heritage in question. Under PS 7, critical cultural heritage is broadly defined and includes natural areas with cultural and/or spiritual value, such as sacred groves, sacred bodies of water and waterways, sacred trees, and sacred rocks (PS 7, paragraph 16, footnote 13; see also PS 7, GN 27). Concerning tangible forms of cultural heritage as defined in PS 8 (paragraph 3), PS 7 is silent except for a circular footnote in paragraph 8, which states, “Additional requirements on protection of cultural heritage are set out in Performance Standard 8.” Unfortunately, paragraph 5 of PS 8 explicitly states that the requirements of PS 8 do not apply to the cultural heritage of Indigenous Peoples and directs the reader to requirements described in PS 7 (see Mason Reference Mason2012:559).

Although speculative, it seems likely that the authors of PSs 7 and 8 assumed that PS 8 would apply to most manifestations of cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible), whereas PS 7 would apply to natural areas with cultural and/or spiritual value associated with living groups of Indigenous Peoples (Mason Reference Mason2012:559). Given the apparent bias in global guidance toward overtly anthropogenic landscapes such as architecture, this division appropriately recognizes the heritage value of natural places; however, natural landforms that have been generated or modified by engineering fall between the two. PS 7 and 8 should be revised to remove the circular logic and to clarify their intent with respect to tangible cultural heritage and intangible cultural heritage, both generally and specifically for Indigenous Peoples. For greater clarity and ease of reference, it would make sense to consolidate core requirements for cultural heritage in PS 8.

Chance Find Procedures

IFC PS 8, paragraph 8: “The client is responsible for siting and designing a project to avoid significant adverse impacts to cultural heritage. The environmental and social risks and impacts identification process should determine whether the proposed location of a project is in areas where cultural heritage is expected to be found, either during construction or operations. In such cases, as part of the client's ESMS [environmental and social management system], the client will develop provisions for managing chance finds through a chance find procedure, which will be applied in the event that cultural heritage is subsequently discovered.”

As defined in footnote 1 of paragraph 8, chance finds are tangible manifestations of cultural heritage that are encountered unexpectedly during project construction or operation. The terminology suggests an unwarranted informality; chance finds can be significant and can include entire archaeological sites. A chance find procedure is a project-specific set of instructions that outlines the actions to be taken by the project proponent if previously unknown cultural heritage is encountered (paragraph 8, footnote 2). Although the language of paragraph 8 and PS 8 GN 15 is generally acceptable, the implementation of chance find procedures can be problematic. For example, Altschul (Reference Altschul2014) and Douglas and colleagues (Reference Douglas, Altschul, Wait and Thiaw2022) describe the practice where project-specific chance find procedures are used by project auditors as the only measure to determine that the requirements of PS 8 have been met. This reflects a lack of understanding and inadequate training on the part of auditors for the proper implementation of PS 8. GN 8 should be revised to include limitations on the use of chance find procedures; in particular, it should be made clear that chance find procedures are not a substitute for cultural heritage surveys.

Consultation

IFC PS 8, paragraph 9: “Where a project may affect cultural heritage, the client will consult with Affected Communities within the host country who use, or have used within living memory, the cultural heritage for long-standing cultural purposes. The client will consult with the Affected Communities to identify cultural heritage of importance, and to incorporate into the client's decision-making process the views of the Affected Communities on such cultural heritage. Consultation will also involve the relevant national or local regulatory agencies that are entrusted with the protection of cultural heritage.”

Paragraph 9 of PS 8 addresses consultation with Affected Communities (see also PS 1) and regulatory agencies. For Affected Communities, consultation on cultural heritage is only triggered when the project may affect cultural heritage that is used, or has been used within living memory, by the Affected Community for long-standing cultural purposes. This narrowly defined approach to consultation is problematic, especially in the context of legal Indigenous rights whose time frame exceeds this parameter.

Making discovery, ongoing use, or use within living memory a prerequisite for consultation on cultural heritage to occur incorrectly assumes that earlier manifestations of cultural heritage that are not currently known, used, or used within living memory are unimportant to Affected Communities. There is a strong case for continuity between living populations and ancestral communities, and by extension, to all manifestations of cultural heritage within a region (see Grier Reference Grier and Miller2007). This speaks to a power imbalance for determining what has value. Rather than creating space for the views of experts, citizens, communities, governments, and other stakeholders to determine what has value and requires consultation, the project proponent through implementation of PS 8 decides (see Martindale and Armstrong Reference Martindale and Armstrong2020; Mason Reference Mason and la Torre2002:9).

In sum, this framework falls well short of best practice, which would require the proponent to consult with Affected Communities throughout the project life cycle to identify cultural heritage through dialogue and representation in field-based studies, to determine its significance, and to develop protection and mitigation strategies in a collaborative manner. Consultation on cultural heritage should not be predicated on its prior discovery, use, or use within living memory for long-standing cultural purposes.

Replicable Cultural Heritage

IFC PS 8, paragraph 11: “Where the client has encountered tangible cultural heritage that is replicable and not critical, the client will apply mitigation measures that favor avoidance.”

The section of PS 8 that speaks to the protection of cultural heritage in project design and execution introduces the concept of replicable cultural heritage as follows:

Whereas a typical definition of replicable is “produced again to be exactly the same as before,” the IFC definition above is more complex and is built around three core concepts: relocation, replication, and redundancy. Each concept is explored below.

The origin of the idea that tangible forms of cultural heritage can be moved out of harm's way to another location (relocation) can be traced to early World Bank guidance on movable cultural property. Goodland and Webb (Reference Goodland and Webb1987:17–18) proposed that in some instances, historical buildings or a religious shrine could “be relocated, preserved, studied, and restored on alternate sites . . . without harming the valued qualities,” and Campbell (Reference Campbell2009:38) introduces the idea of dismantling an existing building and then reconstructing it on a new site. Campbell (Reference Campbell2009:11, 40, 60) also provides further examples of physical cultural resources that are movable, including manuscripts, paintings, carvings, archaeological artifacts, and historic objects.

This approach is most common for historical buildings despite being strongly discouraged in Article 7 of the Venice Charter (see Supplemental Table 1). The relocation of archaeological sites is far less common, but it can occur (e.g., Arnold Reference Arnold, Bullinger, Leesch and Plumettaz2006), and historically, it has not been uncommon for archaeological features such as rock art panels to be relocated from a project footprint (see Lyall Reference Lyall2020:90).

The second concept proposes that tangible forms of cultural heritage that cannot be avoided by development can be replaced by a similar structure (i.e., build a new church) or natural feature to which the cultural values can be transferred by appropriate measures (Campbell Reference Campbell2009:38). Gunchinsuren and colleagues (Reference Gunchinsuren, Altschul and Olsen2011) offer an example from Mongolia, where local communities were confronted with several cases in which ovoos (familial shrines) were located in the path of mining infrastructure and required relocation a short distance away. The families decided that the physical location was not important, and the intangible symbolic and spiritual values could be moved a short distance away and another ovoo constructed. Although it may be possible to replace a recently constructed community structure such as a shrine or temple, this proposal likely becomes more tenuous should the feature have significant age or strong linkages to its surroundings.

The final concept views archaeological and historical sites as replicable if the eras and cultural values they represent are well represented by other sites and/or structures (e.g., redundancy). This type of decision is not uncommon when designing cultural heritage mitigation for a proposed project, but see Thomas (Reference Thomas2019) for an argument that such records are inevitably inadequate, especially given the generally poorly sampled nature of the heritage record. Again, the taxonomic standard for heritage seems to devolve to buildings, which can be rebuilt or moved.

It seems likely that the IFC “shoehorned” cultural heritage into a rough analog from PS 6—specifically, the idea that ecological habitats can be replicated to compensate for or offset project impacts at another location (i.e., “like-for-like or better” PS 6, paragraph 10). The IFC's attempt to frame cultural heritage in relative terms to biodiversity does not reflect internationally recognized good practice, and it should be replaced with nomenclature, a significance framework, and mitigation hierarchy that recognize the variation in tangible and intangible forms of cultural heritage and are representative of a range of scales (e.g., local to global) and perspectives.

Nonreplicable Cultural Heritage

IFC PS 8, paragraph 12: “Most cultural heritage is best protected by preservation in its place, since removal is likely to result in irreparable damage or destruction of the cultural heritage. The client will not remove any nonreplicable cultural heritage . . . unless all of the following conditions are met.”

In contrast to the concept of “replicable cultural heritage” is the concept of nonreplicable cultural heritage, which is predicated on the acceptance of the definition of replicable cultural heritage described earlier. In PS 8, paragraph 12, footnote 5, nonreplicable cultural heritage is defined as follows:

The examples provided in paragraph 12 are exclusively intangible, and only in PS 8 GN 22 are tangible examples of nonreplicable cultural heritage provided. It is unclear if nonreplicable, intangible cultural heritage that is not considered for commercial use requires consideration in this paragraph, thereby providing another example of the lack of clarity in parts of PS 8 (see IFC PS 8, paragraphs 3 and 16). The earlier WB term for this concept is “immovable, tangible cultural property,” with examples including “battlegrounds, holy springs, gardens, towns, caves, geysers, volcanoes and waterfalls” (Goodland and Webb Reference Goodland and Webb1987:4).

The examples of nonreplicable cultural heritage provided in paragraph 12 are poor choices because they are intangible and would be impossible to remove under any circumstance (e.g., climatic conditions). PS 8 GN 22 provides tangible examples of a wide spectrum of nonreplicable cultural heritage, including “an ancient city or temple, or a site unique in the period that it represents.”

We speculate that the authors of PS 8 may have intended the definition of nonreplicable cultural heritage to read along the lines of the following:

This revised text would address intangible cultural heritage and scientifically significant examples of tangible cultural heritage. Still missing, however, are the views of local communities and Indigenous Peoples on what is nonreplicable—in other words, irreplaceable cultural heritage. Similar to replicable cultural heritage, the term “nonreplicable cultural heritage” should be abandoned and replaced with nomenclature, a significance framework, and mitigation hierarchy that acknowledge that intangible cultural value can apply to tangible things and places, and that the nature of significance may be understandable only at a local level.

Critical Cultural Heritage

IFC PS 8, paragraph 13: “Critical cultural heritage consists of one or both of the following types of cultural heritage: (i) the internationally recognized heritage of communities who use, or have used within living memory the cultural heritage for long-standing cultural purposes; or (ii) legally protected cultural heritage areas, including those proposed by host governments for such designation.”

Paragraph 13 of PS 8 defines the concept of critical cultural heritage, and this is further mentioned in paragraphs 7, 11, and 14 and in GN 24 and 25. This concept and its definitions are complex and require careful analysis to understand their intent and implications fully.

At face value, the concept of critical cultural heritage appears to have been borrowed from PS 6 (paragraphs 9 and 16), which describes critical habitat as “areas with high biodiversity value,” including habitat of significant importance to Critically Endangered and/or Endangered Species; habitat of significant importance to endemic and/or restricted-range species; habitat supporting globally significant concentrations of migratory species and/or congregatory species; highly threatened and/or unique ecosystems; and/or areas associated with key evolutionary processes.

The idea of a cultural heritage analog to critical habitat could work (i.e., sites of high cultural value and significance to a group of people or humanity), but the IFC definition undermines this approach with its narrow focus on the internationally recognized heritage of communities, continued use, and legal protection. The critical cultural heritage of Indigenous Peoples is limited to “natural areas with cultural and/or spiritual value such as sacred groves, sacred bodies of water and waterways, sacred trees, and sacred rocks” (PS 7, paragraph 16, footnote 13), thereby reinforcing the stereotype of equating nature with Indigenous Peoples and other forms of cultural heritage with non-Indigenous (“civilized”) persons.

The reference to "internationally recongized heritage of communities who use, or have used within living memory, the cultural heritage for long-standing cultural purposes" in PS 8's definition of critical cultural heritage is an indirect reference to UNESCO World Heritage Sites (see critique of PS 8, paragraph 1 above) and distances itself from those that lack this status and are not used by communities, either currently or in the recent past.

The second type of cultural heritage that is considered critical in PS 8 focuses on “legally protected cultural heritage sites, including those proposed by host governments for such designation,” which signals a bias toward sites on the UNESCO World Heritage List (see PS 8, paragraph 1) and sites on the World Heritage Tentative List (i.e., sites that are proposed for inscription). Footnote 6 in paragraph 15 provides confirmation of this bias and expands the definition to also include nationally protected areas, reflecting its reliance on the concepts and framework found in PS 6.

Complicating matters—and a point overlooked by the IFC—is the fact that most nations have legislation that offers blanket protection to tangible cultural heritage that meets the legal definition for protection within that jurisdiction (e.g., greater than 50 years old; WB 2001:vii). By this definition, legally protected cultural heritage sites are the rule, not the exception, as suggested by the language of PS 8. The expectation of a standard hierarchy of value into which heritage can be sorted is complicated by the different cultural views on any heritage landscape.

Critical cultural heritage, if the term is to be kept, needs to amplify the voice of local communities and cultural groups to focus on the keystone sites that are integral to their identity and the well-being of their community. These keystone sites can be World Heritage Sites, currently used and legally protected, but consistent with the Nara Document on Authenticity (see Supplemental Table 1), these attributes should not restrict what may be considered critical cultural heritage to a population.

Competent Heritage Expert(s)

PS 8, GN, Annex B (clause C): “Expertise needed for Assessment Studies – Where heritage issues are identified, a competent heritage expert(s) will normally be needed on the assessment study team. It will be most useful to recruit those with general expertise in the heritage field and experience with the environmental planning or heritage management process. While a particular type of heritage specialist (e.g., a Middle Bronze Age Pottery expert) may be needed to address certain finds or issues, an expert with a broad perspective (e.g., a cultural geographer) will normally be most suitable.”

The IFC PSs and GNs make frequent reference to the need for both competent professionals and external experts to ensure that the requirements of the PSs are met (e.g., PS 1, paragraphs 18 and 19; GN 74, 75, and 78). These individuals must be competent and possess the education, knowledge, skills, and experience necessary to perform the work, including knowledge of the host country's regulatory requirements and the applicable requirements of PSs 1 through 8. Competent professionals may be in-house staff, external consultants, or a combination of both. External experts are required for projects with specific issues (e.g., biodiversity, resettlement) that may pose significant adverse impacts and risks. These experts are considered qualified by the IFC if they have substantive and extensive experience in similar projects (PS 1, GN 74).

PS 8 includes references to the use of both competent professionals and external experts to identify cultural heritage, to assess development risks to cultural heritage, to provide advice and recommendations, and to implement measures to protect cultural heritage. This may include excavation and related activities where project impacts cannot be avoided or minimized (PS 8 paragraphs 7 and 14; GN 4, 6, 7, 13, 20, 22, and 26). External experts are required to assist with the assessment and protection of critical cultural heritage (PS 8, paragraph 14).

The qualifications of a competent heritage expert(s) are further described in Annex B (clause C) of the PS 8 GN, which recommends retaining an individual or group of individuals with general expertise in the heritage field and, preferably, experience with the environmental planning or heritage management process. The guidance also encourages employing an expert with a broad perspective and suggests that an individual trained as a cultural geographer could be suitable for this role.

The IFC is not incorrect to recommend that an individual or team have a broad perspective on the discipline and not just a narrow specialization (although these need not be mutually exclusive). A cultural geographer does not possess the specific skills or training in site identification, artifact/technological analyses, data collection, and interpretation that an anthropologically trained archaeologist, architectural historian, or a conservation architect will have and, consequently, would not fit the definition of a cultural heritage expert (see WB 1991a:116).

To safeguard both tangible and intangible cultural heritage adequately, robust definitions of a competent professional and heritage expert are necessary and must be based on the education, experience, and competence of an individual (or team of individuals in cases where multiple skills sets are required), evaluated against clear criteria derived from professional bodies such as the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA), the Chartered Institute for Archaeology (CIfA), and the International Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM; see Discussion section).

Internationally Recognized Practice

PS1, paragraph 7, footnote 10: “the exercise of professional skill, diligence, prudence, and foresight that would reasonably be expected from skilled and experienced professionals engaged in the same type of undertaking under the same or similar circumstances globally or regionally.”

Good international industry practice is not well defined in the PSs, and in place of clear definitions, subjective and aspirational expectations are offered. The need for archaeological and historical site surveys and architectural or building surveys by qualified professionals is outlined elsewhere by the World Bank (2001:15) but lacks specificity (i.e., what is a sufficient level of baseline survey or mitigation effort?). Kalman (Reference Kalman2014:126) takes a deeper look at good practice and states, “Good practice is guided by a body of international and national doctrine that is based on theory, experience, and ethics” (see Supplemental Table 1). The World Bank (2001:16, 40) suggests that there is no easy way to evaluate compliance with internationally recognized good practice nor are there material consequences for noncompliance.

PS 8 (paragraph 6) promotes internationally recognized (good) practices for the protection, field-based study, and documentation of cultural heritage, but it provides no further details. PS 8 (GN 6) emphasizes the need to avoid or minimize impacts to cultural heritage (see Lipe Reference Lipe1974 but also Willems Reference Willems2012) and, where site impacts cannot be avoided, the use of competent cultural heritage professionals to undertake field investigations in accordance with internationally recognized practice.

Elaborating on PS 8, paragraph 6 of GN 12 recommends the application of internationally recognized practices to site surveys, excavations, preservation, and publication, in addition to compliance with national law. GN 12 also repeats the definition of good international industry practice found in PS 1, GN 7. PS 8, GN 12 recommends the use of peer reviewers to provide guidance on what constitutes internationally recognized practice. Although such a review may prove useful in certain circumstances, it is still subjective and would require the awareness and recognition that external advice is needed.

In an evaluative framework such as the PS, internationally recognized good practice can have aspirational goals and adhere to relevant doctrine, but there also needs to be a means to evaluate the work against basic, measurable expectations. Although global standards do not exist, the CIfA competence matrices, the International Association for Public Participation's Quality Assurance Standard for Community and Stakeholder Engagement and Annex C of the PS 1 GN offer a place to start (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists [CIfA] 2022; International Association for Public Participation [IAPP] 2015; IFC 2012b; see Discussion section).