Project News No 2 November 2011

8/3/2019 Project News No 2 November 2011

1/8

1

Project News n 2 - November 2011www.warfreeeheritage.net

1

The content o this publication is the sole responsibility o the War Free World Heritage Listed Cities and can in

no way be taken to refect the views o the European Union.

(C) 2011 War Free World Heritage Listed Cities - All rights reserved

did you know?

1954 Hague Convention

THE DISTINCTIVE EMBLEM

Article 16. Emblem of the convention

1. The distinctive emblem o the Conven-

tion shall take the orm o a shield, pointed

below, per saltire blue and white (a shield

consisting o a royal blue square, one o

the angles o which orms the point o theshield, and o a royal-blue triangle above

(follows on page 2)

In each newsletter relevant 1954 Hague Conventionreerence will be highlighted to promote a widerawareness

Director-General of ICCROM Mounir Bouchenaki:

We should not wait for a war to save objects

of cultural heritage

ICCROM, an intergovernmental organisation dedicated to the

conservation o cultural heritage, provides support to the WARFREE WORLD HERITAGE LISTED CITIES project. ICCROM decided to

provide institutional support to the project since the very begin-

ning by providing expertise to the Advisory Board created within

the project ramework. In an interview to our newsletter Director-

General o ICCROM Mounir Bouchenaki explained how the WAR

FREE WORLD HERITAGE LISTED CITIES project ts within ICCROM

agenda/policies or cultural heritage conservation in times o cri-

sis:

This is a very important point because ICCROM, in its programme,

has already developed since a number o years an approach to-

wards the protection, preservation and management o word herit-

age cities. Concerning the cities in times o conict or post conict,

ICCROM a ew years ago launched a specic programme dedicated

to the approach to protecting heritage in times o conict. Several

weeks ago we held a training course addressed to 20 participants

rom 20 countries dedicated to providing rst aid to cultural herit-

age in times o conict.

Concerning Jbail and Mtskheta. ICCROM was also present in Leba-

non through a training course or the Arab region in the ramework

o the ATHAR programme and last year in Tyre, inviting people rom

heritage sites: Byblos, Baalbek, Anzhar and Tyre. Concerning Mt-

skheta one o my advisors Jukka Jokilehto was recently on mission

INDEX

Pag 1

Director-General of ICCROM Mounir

Bouchenaki: We should not wait for a war to

save objects of cultural heritagePag 4

Minister of Culture of Georgia Nicholas Rurua:This project goes well with our strategic

goals

Pag 6

Concept studies

Pag 7

Preparatory works for the design of the

Integrated Management Plan for the Historical

Monuments of Mtskheta will be carried out

with the support of the UNESCOPag 7

Documentation of the Svetitskhoveli Cathedral

will be carried for the further conservation of

the World Heritage Site in Mtskheta


2/8

2





in Georgia.

Leader o the WAR FREE... project, Dr Claudio Cimino asked me

ew years ago i ICCROM could give some support to the activity oWATCH which is very important because in this eld we need the

support o NGOs specialised bodies working closely with the com-

munities. I immediately support the initiative and I designated Pro.

Jukka Jokilehto to be one o the advisors o this operation.

WAR FREE WHL CITIES project is being implemented with a bot-

tom up approach with two Local authorities in Lebanon and in

Georgia preparing a concrete agenda or a protective policy or

the two World Heritage Listed sites as a matter o urban regional

planning. The European Commission supported this idea. How

does a specialised intergovernmental international organisationsuch as ICCROM regard the approach ollowed in the project?

For ICCROM the situation is rst o all an institutional one. ICCROM

together with ICOMOS and IUCN are the three advisory bodies to

the convention o 1972, we have an institutional role in advising

specically in aspects related to training and management o world

heritage sites. We are approaching the issue o the management by

not only speaking o the higher authorities o the country who are

responsible by law o the protection o the sites but also by intro-

ducing in our curricula an approach in which we work with the com-

munities. Thanks to Dr Gamini Wijesuriya, ormer director o herit-

age in Sri Lanka, ICCROM had particularly developed the project in

Asian countries, making sure o the awareness o the values o the

heritage in which they are living and also organising training activi-

ties or the proper protection, also against any inclusion which is not

in avour o the quality o the sites.

ICCROM recently held the second training course on First Aid to

cultural heritage in times o conict. In 2010 WATCH was invited

to cooperate to the planning o the training which is part o its

institutional mission. The 1954 Hague Convention and its Pro-

tocols envisage a clear role or civil society organisations or the

implementation o the Convention. How do you envisage the in-

volvement o specialised non-governmental organisations suchas WATCH with several others or the achievement o concrete re-

sults in the implementation o the 1954 Hague Convention?

I can say that I was personally involved in the revision o this Con-

vention, which has envisaged the conicts as traditional conicts,

one country against one country, one belligerent against one bellig-

erent. At UNESCO in the 1990s a study by Patrick Boylan (City Univer-

sity London) was made concerning an evaluation on the application

o the Convention and we have seen that, unortunately, conicts

that were taking place all over the world were not considered as tra-

ditional conicts, they were more internal conicts. As in the case o

Lebanon there it was an internal conict, UNESCO could not apply

did you know?

(follows from page 1)the square, the space on either side be-

ing taken up by a white triangle).

2. The emblem shall be used alone, or re-

peated three times in a triangular orma-

tion (one shield below), under the condi-

tions provided or in Article 17.

Article 17. Use of the emblem

1. The distinctive emblem repeated three

times may be used only as means o iden-

tication o:(a) immovable cultural property under

special protection;

(b) the transport o cultural property un-

der the conditions provided or in Articles

12 and 13;

(c) improvised reuges, under the condi-

tions provided or in the Regulations or

the execution o the Convention.

2. The distinctive emblem may be used

alone only as a means o identication o:

(a) cultural property not under special

protection;

(b) the persons responsible or the duties

o control in accordance with the Regu-

lations or the execution o the Conven-

tion;

(c) the personnel engaged in the protec-

tion o cultural property;

(d) the identity cards mentioned in the

Regulations or the execution o the Con-

vention.

3. During an armed conict, the use o

the distinctive emblem in any other casesthan those mentioned in the preceding

paragraphs o the present Article, and the

use or any purpose whatever o a sign re-

sembling the distinctive emblem, shall be

orbidden.

4. The distinctive emblem may not be

placed on any immovable cultural prop-

erty unless at the same time there is dis-

played an authorization duly dated and

signed by the competent authority o the

High Contracting Party.


3/8

3


3




the provisions o the Convention o 1954 according to

which authorities can ask or the protection o cultural

heritage, so the problem was quite complicated. In Cam-bodia the conict o the Khmer was an inside conict,

so UNESCO could not ask or the article 4 o the Con-

vention to be implemented in this case. The only case in

which UNESCO was able to ask or the provision o 1954

Hague Convention was the First Gul War when Iraq was

invading Kuwait. Thereore the 1954 Convention with its

1st protocol was not enough so the UNESCO prepared a

2nd protocol in 1999 in order to address the issues that

were not totally taken into account when it was written

in the 50s.

As an international intergovernmental organisation we

are absolutely convinced that NGOs can play an impor-

tant role. I approach the international committee o Red

Cross in Geneva to see i in the work o humanitarian

volunteer in times o conicts, some mission could be

addressed also to cultural heritage.

We work with ICOMOS and we were at UNESCO pro-

moting the creation o what was called the Blue Shield.

Why? Because we try to see with the UN peacekeeping

orces i they can also look at the aspects concerning the

protection o cultural heritage. Now the Blue Shield ishaving more and more activities, the only mission that

has taken place in Libya during these days was with an

NGO, Libyan participants o the Blue Shield gave some

inormation about what was happening in Libya on the

cultural heritage sites. We couldnt be present when the

conict was taking place, we can only intervene just ater

the conict. So the role o NGOs, like WATCH, ICOMOS,

the Blue Shield and ICOM can be sometimes more eec-

tive than the role o an intergovernmental organisation.

Another example: we cannot go to Northern Cyprus

as an intergovernmental organisation because it is not

a recognized country by the UN, but NGOs can. So we

consider the role o NGOs as very important in these

kind o situations.ICCROM is one o the earliest organisations that were

directly involved with the Hague Convention and its

dicult implementation. What are the major actors

that you believe still impede a concrete and wide-

spread implementation / enorcement o the Hague

Convention now since the Guidelines or the imple-

mentation o the 1999 Protocol o the Hague Conven-

tion were issued?

First o all the act that not all countries are signatories

o the Hague Convention, we have just 120 signatoriesand one country as US had only signed last year the Con-

vention o 1954 and not yet the Protocol o 1999. The

second obstacle is that the international organisations

dealing with cultural heritage like UNESCO or ICCROM

dont have an armed orce to go to a place where there

is a conict; we cannot go and stop the destruction. For

security reasons we cannot send missions to countries

in conict. Prevention is important or the implementa-

tion o the Convention and its 2nd protocol; ICCROM is

organising in many countries in areas o conicts Risk

Preparedness; whether it is or disasters coming romnature or man-made disasters.

By the end o WAR FREE WHL CITIES project Risk Pre-

paredness Plans are expected to be in place or two

world heritage sites; training in Risk Assessment and

Risk management will be provided to local experts in

Lebanon and in Georgia; Public awareness campaigns

will be designed and implemented targeting civil so-

ciety at local and national level in the two countries

and eventually internationally; also instruments will

be put in place to secure project sustainability ater

project implementation. What would you recommend

to be taken more thoroughly into account to avoid the

threat o losing momentum in the implementation o

protective policies set or the two WHL sites as a result

o the project?

I think that I can reply by giving an example: the Vatican

is the rst State having ratied the convention o 1954,

although the Vatican is not under any threat. The meth-

odology o all the issues concerning the conict is to

prepare during a time o peace the protection o cultural

heritage in case o conict. Thereore, the Convention o

1954 has provided or the high level protection and re-


4/8

4





uge or important world heritage, unortunately this is

not an easy task and not many countries have replied

to this provision o the Convention. That is why thereshould be a systematic training and awareness raising

about protection o cultural heritage not only when

there is a conict or only ater a conict but beorehand

so it is in time o peace that the convention should be

applied. What should be done is exactly to implement a

programme that ICCROM has developed, a programme

o risk preparedness. We started this course in October

and we are in relations with the military in Italy: Carabi-

nieri per la tutela del patrimonio culturale . We should

not wait or a war to make an object sae, it is during a

time o peace that we should train people to address theissue o the protection.

Mr Bouchenaki, do you know o the existence o any

other similar projects that use a similar approach ei-

ther implemented or currently being implemented in

setting preparatory measures or cultural heritage in

areas at risk?

ICCROM organised a number o courses with partners

in Japan, Nara Institute o Science and Technology and

Tokyo National Research Institute or Cultural Proper-

ties. We organise with them Risk Preparedness train-

ing courses, whether it is natural risk or risk due to man

made. These institutions prepare a series o booklets

addressing the issue o Risk Preparedness; we also pre-

pared a manual on RP in 1997.

Within the AHTAR programme or the Arab region we

have also a number o training courses which are devel-

oped or the Risk Management and Risk Preparedness,

the same is going to happen or the Latin America re-

gion, and or the Eastern European countries we have

also continued a development o training courses where

we are building condence in countries such as Serbia,

Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzego-vina, Croatia in order to re-establish dialogue between

experts in the eld o conservation.

ICCROM is normally on alert or situations o cultural

heritage at risk rom natural and man-made disasters

worldwide. Your organisation is also involved in any

assignment or the protection o cultural heritage in

times o armed conict. Could you mention some o

the most relevant situation o risks to cultural heritage

in areas o armed conict currently ongoing world-

wide?

Minister of Culture of Georgia Nicholas

Rurua: This project goes well with

our strategic goals

Preserving and presenting Georgian heritage resources

is the governments priority, said minister Rurua in an in-

terview or our newsletter. He pointed out that the pro-

ject War Free World Heritage Listed Cities is important

or his country in many terms and that the experience o

Mtskheta will be used or other cities and sites in Geor-

gia.

1. Mr. Minister what is the general policy o Georgia in

protecting cultural heritage?

Georgia has a rich cultural heritage which is a part o ournational identity.

2. What are the main priorities in this eld?

The Cultural Heritage State Programme was set up in

2004, a year ater the Rose Revolution, and the previ-

ously scattered and poorly managed units came under

the Department o Monument Protection. In 2008 the

Department was reorganized and the National Agency

or Cultural Heritage Preservation was established un-

der the auspices o the Ministry o Culture. The Agen-

cy aims at better management and monitoring o the

Actually one area which is unortunately under the spot-

light o the news is the Arab region: Syria, Yemen, Egypt,

Libya. The news concerning Libya is very contradictory,someone says that there are arms in sites, other news

says that it is not true. ICCROM since the beginning o

the conict in Libya is in contact with local specialists,

the director o antiquities and the chie o the archaeo-

logical mission, we can give concrete examples o what

is happening now in terms o conict, working in part-

nership or gathering inormation.

The rst thing is to gather inormation conrmed by a

picture or video lm, and organise saeguarding o col-

lections or protection o monuments, unortunately

again ater the war. Give me an example o a persondealing with cultural heritage who goes into the middle

o a battleeld?

We have to wait until the humanitarian situation is

solved and then the security will permit ICCROM, ICO-

MOS, WATCH and the Blue Shield to go and participate

to the Risk Management.


5/8

5


5




monuments throughout Georgia and the development

o a single policy. During these years the main priorities

have been: the inventory o movable and immovableproperties throughout the country, zoning o the old

towns and cities and conservation o the most endan-

gered sites and the museum reorm.

3. What is the budget or cultural conservation and

promotion? (in absolute gures and as a percentage

o GDP)

Since 2004, the state unding o the cultural heritage has

increased considerably. In 2005 it was 1 784 200 GEL

(nearly 785 000 EUR) and this years budget amounts to

4 858 000 GEL (nearly 2 120 000 EUR).

4. I to compare protection o cultural heritage in

Georgia under the Soviet Union and nowadays what

are the main diferences?

Contrary to the Soviet centralized system when the

State-run organisation, the Ministry o Culture (albeit

quite qualied but limited in terms o human and ma-

terial resources) was responsible or planning, unding,

control and implementation, in 2004 the new orms o

unding, mostly private were introduced into the com-petitive environment. While the State is a policy maker

supervising the execution o all kinds o activities with

regard to the cultural heritage, the actual implementa-

tion is taken on by both the State and private compa-

nies. This situation makes it possible to attract some o

the best international experts and institutions.

5. How is your ministry involved in the project War

Free World Heritage Listed Cities?

The Ministry o Culture has been involved in this pro-

ject rom the initial stage and certain members o sta

were assigned to it. I met the project coordinators sev-

eral months ago and the Ministry is ready to support theproject at any level.

6. What is the place or this project among all other in-

ternational projects running in Georgia?

This project is important in many terms and it goes well

with our strategic goals. The European Union is our stra-

tegic partner and the project is being implemented

within the ramework o ENPI (European Neighbour-

hood and Partnership Instrument). It is also very im-

portant that the local authorities, namely the Mtskheta

Municipality and its partners have initiated the projectdesigned or the protection o sites o outstanding uni-

versal value and also established relations with the part-

ners in the EU and ENP east countries. Furthermore, this

project will acilitate the removal o the Historical Monu-

ments o Mtskheta rom the Heritage in Danger list.

7. Do you think that the project is well known in your

country and has a sucient level o visibility?

On an institutional level it is. However, a more intensive

promotion would be desirable.

8. One o the aims o the project is to produce a Risk

Preparedness Plan. How will the results o this plan be

used?

In 2008, during Russian intervention in Georgia, there

was a real risk or the Historical Monuments o Mtskheta.

In South Ossetia several medieval churches were de-

stroyed and a house where Ivane Machabeli, the promi-

nent Georgian literary and public gure o the nine-

teenth century lived was razed. Incidentally, the house

targeted by the separatists even earlier, had been reha-

bilitated twice beore 2008; other museums in the re-

gion, are also exposed.So it is very important to have Risk Preparedness Plan. I

am equally convinced that the experience o Mtskheta

will be used or other cities and sites in Georgia.

9. Besides Mtskheta what other cities or places in

Georgia must be protected?

Apart rom Mtskheta there are two other sites the Up-

per Svaneti and the monuments o Kutaisi inscribed in

the UNESCO list. However, those o national or local sta-

tus are no less vital to us.


6/8

6





his contribution in a multidisciplinary thematic group

joined by experts coming rom dierent proessional

backgrounds. This allowed a holistic exchange o ideasor a more comprehensive approach and acilitated the

attainment o the expected results.

The thematic groups (TG 1,2,3,4) presented the results

achieved in their area o study in order to produce con-

crete, practical and exhaustive documentation including

a wealth o inormation, records and sufcient evidence:

TG1: Urban planning and heritage protection mapped

the application o the Convention, its Protocols and es-

pecially the implementation o the 1999 HP Guidelines

to the concrete situation existing on the ground. Specialattention was given to the conicts between the current

legislative and local urban regulatory ramework (Land

use, Master plan, Zoning, etc) and the criteria set or the

application o the Hague Convention within the pro-

tected heritage areas and an immediately surrounding

buer zone;

TG2: Civil Military Cooperation aairsoutlined the

Civil Military Relation - with domestic /or alien (hostile)

- armed orces in war time. The principles or concrete

application in the case o preventive policies and in war

theatre during armed conict and logistics or heritage

protection as well as the criteria to be or the mobilisa-

tion o local civil society and interventions on Cultural

Heritage sites in times o armed conicts, considering

the Red Cross and the Blue Shield - provisions or nation-

al - international cultural operators in areas o conicts

according to the Geneva Convention and the Hague

Convention;

TG3: Movable Heritage Logistics / Location / Relocation

/ Responsibilities and Legal provisions dealt with mov-

able heritage in a state o military occupation in timeso war, introducing examples and methodology o trans-

port and temporary relocation, behavioural schemes/

protocols or civil ofcers and assigned people to pro-

tect cultural heritage under preventive denitions and

agreed upon responsibilities; introducing logistics and

preparatory measures to adopt or relocation o herit-

age under the provisions o the Hague Convention;

TG4: Juridical assessment/ audit matching HP 1999 w/

Local practice outlined measures to adopt an appro-

Concept studies

Two Concept studies, one in Mtskheta (Georgia), rom27th to 30th September, and the other in Byblos (Leba-

non), rom 25th to 28th October, took place within the

WAR FREE WORLD HERITAGE LISTED CITIES project that

was established within the ramework o the ENPI CIU-

DAD programme.

Around 30 civil and military experts with dierent back-

grounds rom national and international organizations,

representatives rom the Ministry o Culture, Interior

Ministry, Ministry o Deence, Ministry o Finance and

the Municipality gathered to reconcile Urban planning

in World Heritage Listed urban sites vis--vis Humanitar-ian law and the (1954) Hague Convention or the Pro-

tection o Cultural Property in the event o Armed Con-

ict and especially the provisions o its Second Protocol

(1999 HP), in order to create a Risk preparedness plan or

both cities.

The study o the two areas highlighted the act that there

are no military targets in the buer zone that surrounds

the sites, thereore the assumptions or the achievement

o the project expected results have been veried, but

the Second Protocol o the Convention must still be rati-

ed by the Lebanese concerned authorities.

During the concept study phase, the projects objectives

are examined and stretched rom dierent angles, and

alternative approaches or their achievement. All the

activities were intended to be implemented through

plenary sessions involving 4 dierent thematic groups

and individual contributions. Each participant gave


7/8

7


7




priate legislation to make the violations to the Second

Protocol criminal oences under national law, dening

the responsibilities o the State under international law,criminal responsibilities, jurisdiction and the procedures

or granting enhanced protection. Also Rules to adopt

or an appropriate legislation to make the violations to

the Second Protocol criminal oences under national

law were outlined.

The nal expected results o the concept studies are

meant to produce the conditions and the supporting

documentation necessary to comply with the provisions

contained in the Guidelines to the 1999 Second Protocol

to The Hague Convention to be abided to when apply-ing or the Enhanced protection Status o a listed herit-

age.

The collection o these major results o the concept

studies will be elaborated to become the rst drat o

the Risk Preparedness Plans. In act, the concept studies

result in the compilation o the two RPPs, at this stage

would still be considered at a drat level since the nd-

ings, data and inormation collected and organised and/

or elaborated within the multidisciplinary, inter-insti-

tutional, Civil Military Cooperation environment o the

project (where all the relevant institutions directly or

indirectly concerned are represented) would still need

to be revised by the main national/local authorities re-

sponsible or their adoption (e.g.: Municipalities, Minis-

tries o Culture and Deence).

A nal validation o the two RPP will be oreseen at in-

ternational level and the nal version o the RPP will be

issued ater the incorporation o the recommendations

gathered within the ramework o the planned Interna-

tional Workshop organised within the project ramework

or the validation/integration o the results achieved.

Preparatory works for the designof the Integrated Management Plan

for the Historical Monuments of Mtskheta

will be carried out with the support

of the UNESCO

Historical Monuments o Mtskheta, a WHS in Georgia

was inscribed in the World Heritage in Danger List in

2009. The World Heritage Centre through its internation-

al assistance has allocated $25 000 to address the urgent

need o setting the basis or an integrated management

plan and long term programs or protection and conser-

vation o the site.

The National Agency or Cultural Heritage Preservation

o Georgia will implement the project and co-nance it

with $4 000. To this end a multidisciplinary group o na-

tional experts lead by Dr. Jukka Jokilehto will be set. The

project will prepare necessary conditions or removing

the Historical Monuments o Mtskheta rom the World

Heritage in Danger List.

The activities envisaged by the project implies imple-

mentation o the recommendations o the WH Commit-

tee and advisory bodies such as denition o the OUVo the site, clarication o the boundaries and improved

coordination among national and local authorities and

the Patriarchate o Georgia in the process. The project

will acilitate consolidation o the Georgian government

eorts and will oster the awareness o the World Herit-

age values and UNESCO principles.


8/8

8





the monument, dening priorities or conservation and

implementation o rehabilitation measures.

The project envisages the preparation o the measured

drawings o Svetitskhoveli Cathedral with the collabora-

tion o Georgian and international experts. The interna-

tional experts will implement trainings and guidance o

the Georgian team o monument surveyors. The training

is considered as an essential part o the project where

the Georgian specialists will enhance their knowledge

o modern surveying technologies, data collection and

processing.

Documentation of the Svetitskhoveli

Cathedral will be carried for the further

conservation of the World Heritage Sitein Mtskheta

The Word Heritage Centre and the National Agency or

Cultural Heritage preservation o Georgia nance docu-

mentation o the Svetitskhoveli Cathedral.

Svetitskhoveli Cathedral, one o the most prominent na-

tional monuments o Georgia, has been inscribed in the

World Heritage List since 1994. The history o the protec-

tion, research and conservation o this monument dates

back to the early 20th century. However, very little o ar-chival documentation, collected over the past century,

has survived till today. Particular problem remains the

lack o the updated graphic documentation measured

survey and detailed condition mapping o the monu-

ment. Most o these documents, elaborated in the So-

viet period, were destroyed in the 1990s as a result o the

re. Since then, it was ound difcult to carry out such an

extensive documentation works anew.

In 2009 due to the dierent problems the Historic Monu-

ments o Mtskheta, and Svetitskhoveli Cathedral amongthem, was inscribed in the List o the World Heritage in

Danger. The same time UNESCO approved the proposal

o the State Party to celebrate the 1000th anniversary o

the commencement o the construction o the Svetit-

skhoveli Cathedral in 2010-2011 biennium. These acts

greatly emphasized the responsibility o the State Party

to improve the state o conservation o the monument

and to increase eorts or proper maintenance, docu-

mentation, rehabilitation and conservation o the site.

The National Agency or Cultural Heritage Preservation

o Georgia envisages carrying out a complex research

and conservation program or the Cathedral. The pro-

gram includes the research o the structural stability o

the monument, monitoring the groundwater level uc-

tuation in the area and its impact on the oundation o

the Cathedral, study and conservation o the interior

mural paintings, etc. All these measures necessitate up-

dated graphic documentation and detailed condition

mapping in the interior as well as exterior o the cathe-

dral. Such documentation is ultimately important or

preparation o the detailed conservation program or

Documents

Project News No 2 November 2011