United nations educational, scientific and cultural organization convention concerning the protection of the world


INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST



Download 1.36 Mb.
Page21/26
Date31.05.2016
Size1.36 Mb.
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26

23 INFORMATION ON TENTATIVE LISTS AND EXAMINATION OF NOMINATIONS OF CULTURAL AND NATURAL PROPERTIES TO THE LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER AND THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST

Documents: WHC-02/CONF.202/20 Rev



WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.4

WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.4 Add.1

WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.4 Add.2

WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.5

23.A TENTATIVE LISTS

1. Upon the proposal of the Chairperson, the World Heritage Committee took note of the tentative lists (decision 26 COM 23.1)



23.B NEW INSCRIPTIONS ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST5

1. The Director of the Centre noted that all nominations comply with the requirement of being included on a tentative list. He also explained that under the procedures adopted by the 24th session of the Committee (Cairns, 2000) none of the nominations which were deferred or referred by the Bureau would be examined at this session. The Committee would only be examining cultural nominations in addition to one extension of boundaries for a nature site already inscribed.


2. The Director further noted three innovations introduced this year to improve the decision-making abilities of the Committee:
(i) A brief technical evaluation for each nomination was included in the nomination document (WHC-02/CONF.202/20 Rev), noting the history of the nomination. For serial nominations, a table of all the serial elements was included with relevant details;
(ii) To allow the Committee members to review the nominations prior to the meeting, nominations were made available on line through the Committee's special web site;
(iii) As an experiment this year, the nominations were not brought to Budapest, but were available on publicly accessible computers around the Congress Centre. Should the actual nomination be needed, it could be retrieved from Paris within 24 hours.
3. The Chairperson then announced that he would ask a Deputy Chairperson to lead the debate on the two Hungarian nominations. According to the Rules of Procedure of the Committee, this part of the session would be chaired by the Deputy Chairperson from China.


  1. The Advisory Bodies presented their internal procedures for the evaluations (see WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.4 Add 1 and WHC-02/CONF.202/INF.5).




  1. The Delegate of Greece noted that both Advisory Bodies have different evaluation systems and suggested that they should agree upon a common system.




  1. The Chairperson took note of this interesting proposal but noted that cultural and natural heritage had their own specificity. He asked the Committee not to open a debate on this issue at this stage.

7. For each of the following nominations discussed, the Advisory Bodies gave a brief presentation of the property and their recommendations.





Property

The Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam

Id. N°

211 Rev

State Party

Afghanistan

Criteria

C (ii) (iii) (iv)

1. Following the presentation by ICOMOS, the Committee examined the report of Prof. Andrea Bruno, Special Advisor to the Assistant Director General for Culture of UNESCO, who had undertaken numerous missions to and conservation activities in Afghanistan and the Minaret of Jam.




  1. The Secretariat informed the Committee of a letter dated 6 May 2002 from the Afghan authorities in which Dr. Sayed Makdoom Raheen, Minister of Information and Culture, requested inscription on both the World Heritage List and the World Heritage List in Danger.

3. The Committee considered that, in view of the exceptional value of the site, its political and symbolic importance, and the assistance needed by the Afghan authorities to protect the site, exceptionally, the Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam should be inscribed on the World Heritage List, and on the List of World Heritage in Danger, as had been done at the time of the inscription of Angkor (Cambodia) exactly ten years before.


4. The Observer of France emphasised that Afghanistan had not only been a cross-road where different civilisations met but also a country with autonomous creations which in turn influenced other countries of the region. He, therefore, suggested to include criterion (ii). This proposal was supported by the Delegates of India and Thailand.
5. Noting the consensus, the Chairperson declared the property inscribed on the World Heritage List (decision 26 COM 23.2) and on the World Heritage List in Danger (decision 26 COM 23.3).

6. Following the inscription, a representative of the Secretariat read a letter from the Afghan Minister of Information and Culture, Sayed Makdoom Raheen, expressing the deep gratitude of the Government of Afghanistan for the Committee's support in favour of the heritage in his country.





Property

Cocos Island National Park

Id. N°

820 Bis

State Party

Costa Rica

Criteria

N (ii) (iv)

1. The Delegate of Finland welcomed this extension to protect the marine environment of the site. Recalling the decision of the 25th session of the Committee in Helsinki (2001) to extend the marine zone of the Galapagos Islands (Ecuador), the Delegate observed that it was the second time in the last two years that the Committee had extended the marine zone of an ocean archipelago. Finland favoured the continuation of this policy in the future.


2. The Chairperson noted that there was a consensus to approve the extension of Cocos Island National Park (decision 26 COM 23.4).



Property

Saint Catherine Area

Id. N°

954

State Party

Egypt

Criteria

C (i) (iii) (iv) (vi)

1. The Delegate of Greece stated that she fully supported the inscription of the site, but recommended that in view of the extraordinary artistic treasures housed in the monastery, criterion (i) also be applied. This position was supported by Delegates from Hungary, Thailand, India, Lebanon, Argentina and Belgium.


2. The Delegate of Nigeria supported the inscription.
3. The Delegate of Mexico also noted that he looked forward to seeing the site also inscribed under natural values, as a mixed site. As noted in working document WHC-02/CONF.202/20 Rev and by the Egyptian Delegate, IUCN would be presenting its evaluation of the property's natural values at the 27th session of the Committee in 2003.
4. The Chairperson noted that a majority of the delegates seemed to be in favour of inscription under four cultural criteria (i,iii, iv and vi), and declared the property inscribed decision 26 COM 23.5) with the recommendation noted by the 26th session of the Bureau (decision 26 COM 23.6).
5. Following inscription, the Delegate of Egypt thanked the Committee for its decision. He noted that the Saint Catherine Area was not only the location of a great monastery in Egypt, but also symbolic of the message of peace between all three great monotheistic religions.
6. The Observer of the Holy See also congratulated the Committee for a truly unique site now inscribed on the World Heritage List.
7. During the adoption of the report (item 29) it was agreed that decision 26 COM 23.5 should refer to the "rugged" rather than "savage" landscape as part of the justification for inscription on the World Heritage List under cultural criterion (i). Furthermore it was agreed that decision 26 COM 23.6 should include a request for the State Party to "implement" the 1998 sustainable development plan.



Property

Historic Centres of Stralsund and Wismar

Id. N°

1067

State Party

Germany

Criteria

C (ii) (iv)

1. The Committee discussed the recommendation of the Bureau that this property be inscribed as a serial nomination with the Hanseatic City of Lübeck (Germany), inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1987.


2. The Delegate of Belgium noted that the chain of Hanseatic cities was much longer than Lübeck, Straslund and Wismar and that such a serial nomination could be extended to include towns throughout the region as a testimony of exchanges, economic and artistic. The Delegate of Finland agreed with the proposal.
3. The Delegate of India, however, questioned whether entire town centres could be brought on to the list as extensions of earlier nominations. Such serial extensions might introduce complicated questions of management.
4. The Delegate of Lebanon said that the idea of a serial nomination with Lübeck should be considered.
5. In response, the representative of ICOMOS recommended the Committee exercise caution in extending a Hanseatic serial nomination too far: many Hanseatic towns represent different aspects, and do not necessarily make a single serial nomination.
6. The Delegate of the United Kingdom also expressed caution: the extension of a property as a serial nomination could not be a simple "paper exercise." It was particularly important that any such extension include a management component, applicable to all elements of the inscribed site, examining all the issues of a modern urban site.
7. The Delegate of Thailand agreed that such a serial extension could not be undertaken at this session but should be a recommendation of the Committee.
8. In its presentation, the representative of ICOMOS had called attention to new development, which in some areas is beginning to impact on the historic fabric of the two cities. The Bureau had taken note of the concerns and had recommended to the Committee that "special attention be given to the regulation of the design of modern details and the appropriate use of materials and technology in the rehabilitation of historic structures. The height and design of any new building or addition considered as essential within the historic core area and in its surroundings should respect the traditional skyline and character of the historic town."
9. The Delegate of Greece recommended in this instance, as in other issues generally, that a long-term follow-up process should be put in place. In this case, the ICOMOS recommendation was not precise enough: what "special attention" should be given? The Delegate would have preferred a specific recommendation, such as a call for special regulations on design. The ICOMOS recommendation had also noted heavy automobile traffic. What was the specific ICOMOS recommendation for addressing this issue? Recalling her earlier request during the last session of the Bureau, the Delegate of Greece said that the Committee should have "benchmarks" that allow it to determine whether its recommendations are being followed. A procedure for tracking Committee recommendations should be part of the revised Operational Guidelines.
10. The Delegate of Thailand agreed that a follow-up mechanism of the Committee's recommendations needed to be put in place.
11. The Delegates of Lebanon and Saint Lucia also noted the concerns expressed in the ICOMOS report concerning large-scale construction projects, obstructions to the historic skyline, and the lack of a licence requirement for architects engaged in historic rehabilitation. The Delegate of Saint Lucia also suggested to include the recommendations concerning the newly-inscribed properties in the list of decisions, with a view to facilitating the monitoring by the Committee of their implementation.
12. The representative of ICOMOS called attention to the serious commitment being made by local authorities in recent years, which was beginning to address these issues. A management plan had been adopted in 2000 for the two cities.
13. The Chairperson noted the consensus to inscribe the property on the World Heritage List (decision 26 COM 23.7). He further reminded the Committee that it must not neglect to monitor the follow-up of its decisions as highlighted by several delegates6. In order to address the issues related to the conservation and building regulations a specific decision was adopted (decision 26 COM 23.8).
14. Following inscription, the Observer of Germany thanked the Committee for its decision. She highlighted the enthusiasm of the two cities not only to protect and preserve their own communities, but also to promote the World Heritage Convention. To this end, they had established a foundation, the "Foundation for the Support of the World Heritage Concept", to assist Eastern European countries in the preparation of nominations and management plans for World Heritage sites.
15. During the adoption of the report (item 29) it was agreed that the Committee would not include in its decision an encouragement to the German authorities to continue the consultation process with the Stralsund, Wismar and Lübeck with a view toward a future serial nomination of the three towns. The Committee considered that more reflection was needed on the concept of serial nominations.



Property

Upper Middle Rhine Valley

Id. N°

1066

State Party

Germany

Criteria

C (ii) (iv) (v)

1. The Delegates of Zimbabwe and Greece asked for clarifications related to the management plan.


2. The Delegate of Egypt noted that the first recommendation to differ the nomination had been changed to a positive recommendation. He asked what the arguments were for this change.

3. The Committee debated the nature of management plans in the Rhine Valley, where several different legal jurisdictions had authority. Under these circumstances, the representative of ICOMOS noted, a single management plan with legal authority was impossible. Nevertheless, the ICOMOS representative explained, a complex coordinating mechanism had been set up, which ICOMOS considered was an effective management structure within the meaning of the requirement of the Operational Guidelines.


4. The Delegate of Saint Lucia asked if there was no "charter" of co-operation that all authorities of the region might sign on to?
5. Several delegates expressed concern that the Committee was being inconsistent, rejecting in one case a common owner as management body, but accepting in another case a common "management structure."
6. The Delegate of Zimbabwe suggested that the Committee should define more precisely what the objectives of a management plan are, and what it should consist of, taking into account that the context and structure differ from country to country.
7. The Delegate of the United Kingdom noted that in a complex region an overarching management plan was even more important than for single monuments or areas, since it was the management plan that would define for all authorities the World Heritage values and define the conservation and protective measures that could be used in every part of the site.
8. The Delegate of Belgium asked for the clarification of the concept "management plan" noting that daily management can be more effective than a never implemented "Management Plan". She recalled that there seemed to be an inherent contradiction in the Operational Guidelines, and the revision to the Guidelines should examine this issue.
9. The Chairperson asked the Observer of Germany to answer the questions raised by the Committee. The Observer explained that not only was there a coordinating Secretariat, as described by ICOMOS, but there was also a charter of sustainable development that all of the cities in the region had subscribed to.
10. On a procedural point, the Delegate of Egypt stated that it was preferable to address all questions to the Advisory Bodies as some States Parties having put forward nominations might not be present at the meeting.
11. The Chairperson gave the floor to ICOMOS who confirmed that the management system was effective.
12. The Chairperson concluded that the proposal made by the Egyptian Delegate was very important for future discussions of the Committee. There being no further objections, the Chairperson declared the property inscribed on the World Heritage List (decision 26 COM 23.9).
13. Following inscription, the Observer of Germany thanked the Committee, noting that the communities of the region would continue to work for sustainable development and the conservation of the World Heritage values for which the site had been inscribed.



Property

Budapest, the Banks of the Danube and the Buda Castle Quarter

Id. N°

400 Bis

State Party

Hungary

Criteria

C (ii) (iv)

1. As announced by the Hungarian Chairperson, the debate was chaired by the Deputy Chairperson from China for the two Hungarian nominations.


2. The Delegate of Lebanon noting that Andrássy Avenue was Budapest's Champs d'Elysees, welcomed the proposal for the extension as it would illustrate the union of Buda and Pest in a coherent way. He expressed concern, however, that World Heritage status might accelerate the process whereby residential quarters were being converted to offices. Automobile traffic was also expanding in the area. He urged that some measures be considered that might stimulate the retention of residences in the World Heritage area and improve the public space and street amenities. Finally, he suggested encouraging the Hungarian authorities to extend the buffer zone of the World Heritage area to the western side of the existing property, on the Buda side of the town.
3. The Delegate of the Russian Federation supported the nomination.
4. The Delegates of India and Saint Lucia, while endorsing the inscription, shared the concerns expressed by the Delegate of Lebanon.
5. The acting Chairperson declared the extension approved (decision 26 COM 23.10) with separate decisions to address the specific recommendations for Andrássy Avenue (decision 26 COM 23.11) and the Buda Castle area (decision 26 COM 23.12)
6. Following inscription, the Delegate of Hungary expressed his gratitude to the Committee for its decision, and invited the delegates to the tour of the city which would take place on Saturday morning.



Property

Tokaji Wine Region Cultural Landscape

Id. N°

1063

State Party

Hungary

Criteria

C (iii) (v)

1. In the discussions which followed the presentation of this site by ICOMOS, several States Parties voiced unhappiness over the contradictory texts provided by the Advisory Body in January and in April, when it changed its recommendation. The ICOMOS representative explained that following the Bureau meeting, the Bureau recommendation had replaced the ICOMOS recommendation, although it had not been adequately identified as such in the revised ICOMOS evaluation.


2. Although as ICOMOS had noted, the comparative study on vineyards had not yet been completed, delegates recalled the decision of the 26th session of the Bureau that it would be unfair to a State Party to defer the nomination pending the results of a comparative study when a vineyard in Portugal had just been inscribed in December 2001. However, they agreed that the Tokaji vineyard landscape should be the last such vineyard landscape to be inscribed until the study had been completed.
3. The Delegate of Argentina noted that the comparative studies of the Advisory Bodies were not a prerequisite for nominations. She also recalled that in 1918 when the "Tokaji" appellation had been established, the region included parts which today are part of Slovakia. For that reason, she reminded delegates, the Committee should encourage the Slovakian authorities to present a transboundary extension of the property. As an extension, it should be considered an exception to the rule of halting the inscription of vineyard landscapes pending the results of the comparative study.
4. Delegates of South Africa, Republic of Korea, United Kingdom, Saint Lucia, Thailand, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Greece, China, Nigeria, India, Egypt, Finland, Colombia and Lebanon all supported this proposal.
5. The Delegates of India and Finland noted that the extension of the property with the Slovakian part of the Tokaji nomination region should not be a reason to defer the nomination for the Hungarian part.
6. The Delegates of Thailand and the Republic of Korea emphasised the complexity of the management of the property, the latter asking for regular monitoring
7. During the discussion of the nomination, several delegates expressed disappointment that they seemed to be discussing the same issue that they had already discussed during the Bureau session.
8. The Delegate of the United Kingdom called for a streamlining of the procedures.
9. The Delegate of Saint Lucia requested that the Committee should discuss the mandate of the Bureau.
10. The Delegate of Egypt, while noting that the Bureau should not replace the Committee, suggested that perhaps the Advisory Bodies should present their evaluations only to the Bureau, and the Bureau in turn would pass on its recommendations to the Committee in written form.
11. On the other hand, suggested the Delegate of Lebanon, the Committee should not be a rubber stamp for the conclusions of the Bureau.
12. Noting the consensus concerning the nomination, the acting Chairperson declared the property inscribed on the World Heritage List (decision 26 COM 23.13). The possible extension was addressed in a specific decision (decision 26 COM 23.14).
13. Following inscription, the Delegate of Hungary thanked the Committee for its decision, and made the following statement: "Hungary has engaged for several decades now in intensive negotiations with the Slovakian State Party. Some of those negotiations have been intensified by now. The State Party of Hungary expresses its wish to keep the spirit of co-operation with Slovakia in the future too."


Property

The Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya

Id. N°

1056 Rev

State Party

India

Criteria

C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi)

1. The Delegate of Thailand recommended that, in view of the immense importance of the temple, constructed of brick, criterion (i) also be applied to this site. The proposal was supported by the Delegates of China, Hungary, Argentina, Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, and Nigeria.


2. Several delegates including Saint Lucia, Argentina, and the United Kingdom noted the concern expressed by ICOMOS that the site is experiencing strong pressures from increasing tourism and pilgrimage. The Delegates of Saint Lucia and the United Kingdom asked the representative of ICOMOS what had been done in response to these pressures.
3. The Delegate of India responded that the management authorities had taken note of these well-intentioned concerns. They are currently considering ways of maintaining the integrity of the site while providing for the legitimate interests of pilgrims to the site. The State Party was committed to taking appropriate measures.
4. Much of the discussion concerned the nature of the management regime at the site. Although the representative of ICOMOS explained that a "management structure" existed as well as a master plan for the city itself, delegates asked for additional details with a view to safeguarding the spiritual values of the site.
5. The Delegate of Saint Lucia asked if the management plan considered the site's "carrying capacity?" Was there a monitoring plan in place?
6. The spokesperson of ICOMOS assured the Committee that there was a management plan but that regular monitoring would be advisable. He also indicated that the management authority, being the owners of the site, might be tempted to give a higher priority to development than to conservation.
7. The Delegate of the United Kingdom reminded the Committee that that morning they had heard numerous examples of threats to World Heritage properties which lacked adequate management plans. In this case, did a management plan exist, and was it in place? A management structure was often not sufficient to guarantee that the values of a site would be adequately protected, and a development plan could even be counter-productive. The Delegate urged that the Committee make a strong recommendation that the current management authorities put in place a management plan as a matter of urgent priority, with a strong provision for monitoring.
8. These views were supported by the Delegate of Zimbabwe.
9. In conclusion, the Chairperson declared the property inscribed on the World Heritage List (decision 26 COM 23.15) with a specific decision to address the management plan issues (decision 26 COM 23.16).
10. Following inscription, the Delegate of India thanked the Committee for its decision.



Property

The Late Baroque towns of the Val di Noto (South-eastern Sicily)

Id. N°

1024

State Party

Italy

Criteria

C (i) (ii) (iv) (v)

1. In the discussion following the presentation of this property, several delegates expressed surprise that eight towns were being inscribed simultaneously, and the Delegates of India and Zimbabwe asked for clarification.


2. Both the Delegates of Finland and Thailand noted that although this was a serial nomination of several towns, it amounted to a single nomination, as was provided under paragraph 19 of the Operational Guidelines.
3. The Indian Delegate noted that while she supported the concept of serial nominations, such a nomination posed questions, not only in terms of numbers of sites but especially concerning the management of the eight towns.
4. The Delegate of Lebanon strongly endorsed the concept of serial nominations as a means of limiting the size of the list, while at the same time allowing many sites which might belong to the same thematic group, to be inscribed.
5. The Delegate of Saint Lucia also supported the Thai and Lebanese positions.
6. The Delegate of Portugal supported the nomination.
7. The Delegate of Greece asked ICOMOS for clarification concerning the management plan.
8. Both the Delegates of the United Kingdom and Lebanon noted the complexity of applying a single management plan to a group of eight towns. While, collectively, the eight towns represented a unique response to a natural disaster, and so were appropriately considered as a serial nomination, they did present a difficult management challenge. It was important that a unified, overarching management plan should not only define the World Heritage values for which the site was inscribed, but it must also provide the plan by which these values are protected. The Delegate of the United Kingdom, while supporting the nomination, emphasised the need for an integrated management plan. The representative of ICOMOS, he noted, had assured the Committee that that work was in progress.
9. The ICOMOS spokesperson noted that the second phase of the management plan had only recently been received, but ICOMOS was well satisfied that a comprehensive management plan was being put in place.
10. There being no further discussion, the Chairperson declared the property inscribed on the World Heritage List (decision 26 COM 23.17).
11. Following inscription, the Observer of Italy expressed his gratitude to the Committee for its decision.



Property

The Ancient Maya City of Calakmul, Campeche

Id. N°

1061

State Party

Mexico

Criteria

C (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)

1. The Delegates of Finland, Hungary, India, Argentina, Egypt, Nigeria and Belgium spoke in favour of this inscription.


2. During its presentation, the representative of ICOMOS drew the attention of the Committee to the presence of trees growing throughout the site, which could be dangerous to the stability of the structures. Several delegates spoke to the issue.
3. The Delegate of India noted the commendable state of conservation and suggested that if the monument had successfully withstood several centuries of tree growth, perhaps the retention of trees within the site was not of great importance.
4. The Delegate of Lebanon saw no difficulty with the trees, so long as they did not put the structures of the site itself in jeopardy. If the trees were to become a danger to the structure, then the authorities would have to address the issue.
5. The Delegate of Belgium agreed with the concerns expressed by ICOMOS, and suggested that as excavations progressed, the management authorities should reassess any damage that might be caused by the trees.
6. The Delegate of Thailand, while agreeing with the inscription of the property on the basis of criteria (ii), (iii), and (iv), recalled the concern he expressed at the 26th session of the Bureau concerning the application of criterion (i). The Committee must be consistent in the application of criteria.
7. The Delegate of Finland noted that criterion (i) could well be applied to the artistic achievement of the many commemorative stelae at Calakmul.
8. The Delegates of Finland, Hungary, Lebanon, and Colombia spoke in favour of inscription on the basis of all four cultural criteria.
9. The Chairperson declared the property inscribed on the World Heritage List (decision
26 COM 23.18). He asked that the concerns expressed by the Delegate of Thailand, that the criteria be consistently applied, be kept in mind. The concerns regarding the presence of trees on the property were addressed in a specific decision (decision 26 COM 23.19).
10. Following inscription, the Delegate of Mexico thanked the Committee for its decision. The Observer of Italy also praised Mexico for having proposed the site.



Property

The Historic Inner City of Paramaribo

Id. N°

940 Rev

State Party

Suriname

Criteria

C (ii) (iv)

1. There being no questions raised, the Chairperson declared the property inscribed on the World Heritage List (decision 26 COM 23.20).


2. The Delegate of Suriname thanked the Committee for its decision recalling that it was the second site for his country to be inscribed on the World Heritage List.



Property

Wooden Churches of Southern Little Poland

Id. N°

1053

State Party

Poland

Criteria

DEFERRED

1. The Committee debated the need for a comparative study, which had been requested by the 25th session of the Bureau. While ICOMOS was satisfied that the comparative study submitted by the State Party in October 2001 was sufficient to recommend inscription of six medieval churches, the larger study of wooden churches in the region of the Carpathian Mountains had not yet been completed.


2. The Delegate of Greece noted that in other cases ICOMOS had recommended to defer a nomination until the accomplishment of the comparative study.
3. Some delegates considered that the Committee had not been consistent in the past in its demand for comparative studies, and as a result it could not now hold the State Party responsible without establishing a "double standard."
4. The Delegate of South Africa reminded the Committee that at its 25th session in Helsinki, the Committee had decided that the absence of a comparative study should not be a reason for deferring a site.
5. The Delegates of Zimbabwe and India agreed that the State Party could not be faulted for the absence of a study if it was not a requirement of the Operational Guidelines. The Committee must send a consistent message before it could require a thematic or comparative study.
6. Other delegates (including Lebanon, United Kingdom and Thailand ) considered that the absence of a complete study made the evaluation of the proposed churches difficult. While a thematic study might not be necessary for churches inscribed under criteria (i) or (vi), said the Delegate of Lebanon, it would be extremely difficult to justify the use of criteria (iii) or (iv) without such a comparative study. The Delegates did not reach consensus on the requirement of a comparative study, but agreed that rules should be unambiguous.
7. The representative of ICOMOS also noted in his opening presentation that although no published management plan existed for the nominated property, it was satisfied that the management requirements of the Operational Guidelines were met by the owner, the Roman Catholic Church, by the regional monuments service, and by the land-use master-plans of the local communes.
8. Delegates, however, expressed doubt that these provisions satisfied the requirements of the Operational Guidelines. The Delegate of the United Kingdom noted that dual secular and ecclesiastical management of active religious structures often led to management conflicts that could defeat conservation goals. He noted that the Committee should prefer a plan in place that would clearly state the long-term goals and protective measures for the group of churches as a whole.
9. The Delegate of Finland noted that at its last meeting, the Drafting Group on the revision of the Operational Guidelines had agreed that no site should be inscribed without a management plan in place.
10. Concerning management plans, the Delegate of Lebanon agreed: the Committee and its requirements for nominations had evolved; the Committee must be more demanding.
11. The Delegates of Thailand, Colombia, and the Republic of Korea concurred.
12. In turn, the Delegate of Belgium read out the text (in French) of paragraph 21 of the Operational Guidelines:
"States Parties are encouraged to prepare plans for the management of each natural site nominated and for the safeguarding of each cultural property nominated. All information concerning these plans should be made available when technical co-operation is requested",
emphasising that the use of the conditional tense in the Operational Guidelines means that there is not at present an obligation for the State Parties to submit a management plan with a nomination.
13. The Delegate of Thailand read out the text of paragraph 6(v) from the Operational Guidelines:
"Inscriptions of sites shall be deferred until evidence of the full commitment of the nominating government, within its means, is demonstrated [:].... relevant legislation, staffing, funding, and management plans ..."
The credibility of the Committee would be at stake, the Delegate said, if the nomination was allowed to be inscribed.
14. A proposal of the Chairperson to inscribe the property with the condition that the State Party presents a management plan by a certain deadline was not acceptable for most of the Committee members.
15. The Delegate of Saint Lucia asked for clarification as to the other option and asked what would be the deadline?
16. The debate was closed at the request of the Delegate of South Africa.
17. In an effort to reach consensus rather than having to vote, the Delegate of Nigeria suggested to defer the nomination.
18. The Delegate of Korea noted that he was unclear about the deadline.
19. The Delegate of Zimbabwe noted that there was no consensus.
20. The Delegate of Saint Lucia asked what would happen if the management plan was not ready? Would it result in the inscription on the World Heritage List in Danger?
21. The Delegate of India asked how much time would be needed to prepare a management plan?
22. The Polish Observer stated that each church had a separate plan and that it would be possible to produce an integrated plan in time for the next Committee session.
23. However, the Delegates agreed that to inscribe a site "conditionally" on the promise of a management plan would set an undesirable precedent; and that ultimately the Committee could be faced with the need to delete a site which had not complied with such a conditional requirement. If the State Party could produce the required plan by the next Committee session then why should the Committee not defer the nomination now and inscribe the site at the 27th session of the Committee in 2003?
24. The Chairperson concluded that there was now consensus on deferral of this nomination (decision 26 COM 23.21).



Property

The Sacri Monti of Piedmont and Lombardy

Id. N°

1068

State Party

Italy

Criteria

DEFERRED

1. Following the deferral of the nomination of the Wooden Churches of Southern Little Poland (Poland), over the absence of a comprehensive management plan, the Committee considered that it had little choice but to defer the nomination of the Sacri Monti.


2. To be useful for the management of a serial nomination, noted the Delegate of the United Kingdom, a management plan should present common objectives and define common values.
3. The Chairperson asked the Observer of Italy whether there was a comprehensive management plan for the area. The Observer replied that there was not a management plan but a "management mechanism". Such an overarching management plan, the representative of ICOMOS explained, did not exist for the Sacri Monti of Piedmont and Lombardy.
4. The Delegate of Lebanon noted that while a certain amount of flexibility could be expected in the application of this rule toward non-western cultures, the State Party in this case should be able to provide a common framework, a degree of consistency.
5. The representative of ICOMOS indicated that the management regime of the Sacri Monti amounted to "traditional management".
6. The Delegates of India and Thailand, however, had difficulty applying that reasoning in a European context.
7. The Delegates of Saint Lucia and South Africa considered that the Committee must be consistent in the application of its management standard: the same rules should be applied to all nominations. Without this consistency, the Committee would be applying a double standard.
8. The Chairperson concluded that there was consensus on deferral of this nomination (decision 26 COM 23.22).





Share with your friends:
1   ...   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2020
send message

    Main page