The Regional Seminar for CIS countries - UNESCO€¦ · Proceedings of the Regional Seminar for CIS countries “Safeguarding World Heritage in the Context of New Global Challenges”

The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage

in the Context of New Global Challenges»

1-3 March 2011 Moscow

2

УДК 502.8:001.83(063)

ББК 79.001

Упо 67

Proceedings of the Regional Seminar for CIS countries

“Safeguarding World Heritage in the Context of New Global Challenges”

1-3 March 2011, Moscow, Russian Federation

Editors Yury Vedenin, Heritage Institute, Moscow, Russia

Tamara Semenova, Heritage Institute, Moscow, Russia

Consultative support UNESCO Office in Moscow for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova and the

Russian Federation

Translation of the seminar materials: Aleinikov P.A.,Ananichev K.K., Kulikov S.V.

Maksakovsky N.V., Provorova I.V., Semenova T.Yu., Sokolsky S.A.

Published in electronic version in 2011

Copyright © Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage named after Dmitry

Likhachev, 2011

Regional Seminar for CIS countries has been organized with the support of the UNESCO

Office in Moscow for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova and the

Russian Federation All the ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the individual authors. The

authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this book and

for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not

commit the Organization.

All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or

transmitted, in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the publishers:

Heritage Institute 2 Kosmonavtov street, Moscow 129366 Russia

Telephone : +7 495 6861319

Fax : +7 495 6861324

Email: [email protected]

http://www.heritage-institute.ru

ISBN 978-5-86443-173-3

http://www.heritage-institute.ru/




3

Contents

Brief Information 4

Programme Committee 5

Organizing Committee 6

Concept 7

Program 10

Expert Papers 17

Conclusion 70

Recommendations 76

Press Release 79

List of Participants 80

Acknowledgements 85

Attachment 1. Questionnaire 86

Attachment 2. Presentations by Participants

Attachment 3. Photos




4

Brief Information

Event

The Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev

is organizing with the support of the UNESCO Moscow Office and in partnership with the

Russian Federation Ministry of Culture, the Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding

World Heritage in the Context of New Global Challenges» to be held with participation of

national and international experts in Moscow on March 1-3, 2011.

Participants

60-70 participants from the CIS member states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of

Moldova, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine) – representatives of relevant ministries and

agencies, research and public organizations, the World Heritage Sites, national and international

experts in the sphere of cultural and natural heritage preservation.

Working languages

Russian and English

Overall theme

Multidisciplinary research for safeguarding and management of World Heritage Sites in the

context of new global challenges (such as climate change, uncontrolled urbanization and tourism

pressure)

Objectives

1. Data assessment on the World Heritage Sites preservation in the CIS countries

2. Identification of priorities and resources for foresight activities in the sphere of World

Heritage Sites management and enhancement

3. Promotion of cultural landscape as a key heritage site and its role in the sustainable

development in the East European region

4. Promotion of regional exchange of good practices in heritage preservation

5. Networking for best practices introduction and broader regional cooperation

Expected outcomes

1. Comparative assessment of the World Heritage Sites preservation in the CIS countries

2. Replication of the successful management models

3. Scientific and information support for the regional cooperation network on heritage and

cultural landscape preservation

4. Institutional capacity building for regional cooperation.




5

Programme Committee

BUSYGIN

Andrey Evgenievich

Chairman

Deputy Minister, Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation

VEDENIN

Yury Aleksandrovich

Deputy Chairman

Director, Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural

Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev

BADARCH

Dendev

IVLIEV

Grigory Petrovich

ORDZHONIKIDZE

Geogry Eduardovich

Director, UNESCO Office in Moscow, UNESCO Representative

in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova and the

Russian Federation

Member of the RF State Duma,

Chairman, State Duma Committee for Culture

General Secretary, The Commission of the Russian Federation for

UNESCO

KOLOSSOV

Vladimir

Aleksandrovich

Vice-President, International Geographic Union

NERONOV

Valery Mikhailovich

Vice-President, International Coordination Council for UNESCO

―Man and the Biosphere‖ Program

TRUBOCHKIN

Dmitry Vladimirovich

Director, Institute of Art Science under Ministry of Culture of the

Russian Federation




6

Organizing Committee

VEDENIN

Yury

Aleksandrovich

TSVETNOV

Vladimir Anatol‘evich

KOLESNIKOVA Lyudmila

Petrovna

Chairman

Director, Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural

Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev

Deputy Chair

Deputy Director, Department for Cultural Heritage and Arts,

RF Ministry of Culture

Deputy Chair

Director General, The Moscow State Integrated Art and

Historical, Architectural and Natural Museum-Reserve

EREMEEV

Aleksandr

Vladimirovich

MAKSAKOVSKY

Nikolai Vladimirovich

Deputy Director, Russian Research Institute for Cultural and

Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev

Head, Department of Unique Historical and Natural Sites,

Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage

named after Dmitry Likhachev

SEMENOVA

Tamara

Yurievna

Executive Secretary

Senior Researcher, Russian Research Institute for Cultural and

Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev

MOREVA

Liubava Mikhailovna

Consultative Support

Programme Specialist for Culture, UNESCO Office in Moscow

for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Republic of Moldova and the

Russian Federation




7

Concept Paper

Background Information

Despite the modern global crisis, economic situation in Russia is improving giving way

to more stable policies in the sphere of cultural development and nature conservation. However,

these sectors of economy in Russia and other CIS countries still lag behind the other branches

and receive significantly less attention. But crisis is exactly the turning point for reconsideration

of the cultural and natural heritage values and their role in the country‘s national and regional

sustainable development.

The preservation of World Heritage Sites is vital for the improvement of the national

management system based on the comprehensive approach towards the preservation of the

spatial cultural and natural heritage objects.

In this context, regional workshops and expert meetings are effective tools for exchange

of information and focused discussion of the existing problems, including cultural and natural

heritage management in the region with the similar economic and political structures and

processes. The rich technical, professional and social expertise that comes from the inter-state

organizations such as UNESCO, is highly important for developing new recommendations on

management of World Heritage Sites, including re-assessment of impacts from the global

climate change, urbanization process, and tourism development.

Agenda

The seminar agenda is developed in line with the UNESCO‘s strategic objectives for

strengthening the contribution of culture to sustainable development, it promotes an intercultural

dialogue for better mutual understanding and appreciation within the UNESCO Plan of Action

for the celebration of 2010 as the International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures.

Countries of the CIS, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova, and the

Russian Federation have a significant period of co-existence and common history, and share

comparable values, therefore they are able to cooperatively discuss the national heritage issues

and propose effective measures for subsequent improvement actions in the region.

Goal

The main goal of the seminar is to strengthen the regional scientific and informational

potential for the implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (adopted in 1972),

for better management of the World Heritage Sites and foresight activities against new global

challenges.

Thematic Justification

It is known that increase of the industrial effluents into the atmosphere, in particular, if

accompanied by rapid deforestation (of both tropical and boreal forests) leads to the so-called

‗greenhouse‘ effect and atmosphere warming. As a result of the changing weather and climate

conditions the glaciers are to melt and the level of the World Ocean rises. These phenomena

create a real threat to many regions to be flooded, in particular the low relief territories (coastal

areas). Among the other objects, the natural heritage sites and historical monuments might be

seriously threatened. These are World Heritage Sites in Western Europe, located in the low-level




8

areas of the Great Britain, the Netherlands, Germany etc. There are also cities of Venice and St.

Petersburg directly dependent on the sea levels.

Another important global change is uncontrolled urbanization – the sprawling of the

modern cities, subsequent conglomeration of the heritage sites by the new housing constructions,

and destruction of the centennial historical centres and urban landscapes. According to some

estimations, almost half of the existing World Heritage Sites are monuments and heritage sites

located in the urban environment or in the very historical centres, thus every second site

inscribed to the World Heritage List is threatened by the negative impacts of the urbanized

environment. One of the examples of the emerging threats in the traditional urban landscape is so

called ‗vertical pollution‘ in the form of modern skyscraper construction – this is the case of

Okhta Centre project development in St-Petersburg.

Due to highly expanded tourist migrations (this is non-debatable tendency in the last

decades) today there is a real threat to various World Heritage Sites. On one hand, these are the

historic districts in the most visited ancient towns (primarily in the Europe), suffering from the

visitors‘ overload. On the other hand, those are the most popular nature reserves (such as safari

parks in the South East Asia and Africa), where in some locations vegetation cover severely

degrades and wild animals suffer from the permanent stress. Excessive tourist pressure in the

heritage sites is highly profitable, but naturally it requires a remedy in the form of specific

approaches and various combinations of the organizational, prohibitive, planning, educational

and other measures.

These problems are most visible in the spatial sites with cultural and natural heritage,

including cultural and historic urban landscapes.

Actions Proposed

For mitigation of the negative impacts it is important to optimize the heritage

management system, including legal, administrative, financial, social, technical and other

measures to ensure

- quality preservation of the World Heritage Sites;

- their rational (sustainable) use;

- permanent comprehensive monitoring of their state;

- effective protection of the natural and cultural properties served as a basis for World

Heritage nomination;

- consideration of the environmental and cultural landscape conditions, as well as

raising awareness on the spatial heritage sites to ensure the integrated natural and

cultural values preservation.

The main focus is on the foresight activities, supported by the continuous monitoring,

forecast of the optional scenarios, tentative loss of the outstanding universal value or unique

properties of the World Heritage Sites, as well as other proactive measures. For institutional

capacity building on these issues there is planned an interactive session with the participation of

the World Heritage Center experts. This session will share experiences between the countries in

the research of the global challenges and their impact upon the heritage preservation.

It would be important to discuss also the degree, direction and mode of human traditions

to evolve while protecting the historic environment. In this context ‗living heritage‘ shall be

incorporated into protective legislation, thus enabling intangible values to be taken into

account, while the cultural landscape concept will facilitate the coordination of the tangible and

intangible heritage preservation and use.

Under the conceptual development a questionnaire has been elaborated for preparation of

the seminar participants. It is mounted in the Internet for collecting responses from the staff




9

members of the region‘s World Heritage Sites and representatives of the CIS countries.

Integrated into a summary document, it will be used for identifying experts for comments,

participation in the interactive session and contributions for the seminar recommendations.

Seminar Expected Outcomes

The seminar will contribute to the elaboration of the comprehensive documentation,

including recommendations on the World Heritage properties more effectively protected against

new global challenges and threats. Governing bodies will be supplied with these documents and

recommendations for the subsequent reactions on heritage management and further

implementation in the national system of the heritage protection. All seminar materials and

research expert presentations will be published in Russian and English at the Heritage Institute

web-site (www.heritage-institute.ru). In this way, there would be established a common Internet

resource for communication and information exchange and strengthening cooperation in the East

European region.

Further actions for cooperation and institutional capacity building, including education

and training are to be planned. This will ensure sound scientific and technical support to the

regional World Heritage initiatives, elaboration of the joint programs and projects, counseling

and professional training of the staff members of the World Heritage Sites.

Regional seminar for CIS countries with the participation of the international experts will

enhance the communication and exchange of the scientific information to improve the heritage

preservation at the regional level.





10

Programme

Tuesday March 1, 2011

Venue Heritage Institute, 2 Kosmonavtov st.

9.00-10.00 Registration of the participants

I. Opening Remarks

Chair Mr Yury VEDENIN, Director, Heritage Institute, Moscow, Russia

10.00-10.30

Welcoming Speeches

Mr Andrey Busygin, Deputy Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation, the

Chair of the Programme Committee

Mr Dendev Badarch, Director of the UNESCO Office in Moscow, UNESCO

Representative in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Republic of Moldova and the

Russian Federation

Mr Grigory Ivliev, Chair of the RF State Duma Committee on Cultural Affairs

Mr Grigory Ordzhonikidze, Secretary General, The Commission of the

Russian Federation for UNESCO

II. New Global Challenges and their Impact on the World Heritage Sites

Co-chairing

Mr Vladimir KOLOSSOV, Vice-President, International Geographical Union, Russia

Mr Georghe POSTICA, Vice-Minister, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Moldova

Key expert presentations 30 min including discussion

11.00-11.30 Cultural Policy and Legislation in the Heritage Sphere

Mr Grigory Ivliev, Chair of the RF State Duma Committee on Cultural Affairs,

Moscow, Russia

11.30-12.00 Heritage Preservation and Sustainable Tourism Development in the

Context of Global Challenges: UNESCO Strategies and Programs

Mr Herve Barre, Program Specialist in Sustainable Tourism, UNESCO World

Heritage Center, Paris, France

12.00-12.30 Coffee/tea

12.30-13.00 Urbanization and Heritage Preservation

Mr Vladimir Krogius, Deputy Director, Institute for Historical Cities

Reconstruction, Moscow, Russia

13.00-13.30 Climate Change and Heritage Preservation

Mr Arkady Tishkov, Deputy Director, Institute of Geography, Russian

Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia




11

13.30-14.30 Lunch

III. Cultural Landscape as a Heritage Site

Co-chairing

Mr Alexander DROZDOV, Leading Researcher, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of

Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Ms Pavlina MISIKOVA, National Coordinator, Ministry of Environment, Bratislava, Slovakia


14.30-15.00 Global Transformations of Rural Cultural Landscape – Main Drivers and

Management Challenges

Mr Jorgen Primdahl, Professor, Copenhagen University, Denmark

Mr Simon Swaffield, Professor, Lincoln University, New Zealand

15.00-15.30 Cultural Identity and Terraphilia

Mr Zoran Roca, Professor, Lusofona University, Lisbon, Portugal

Mrs Maria De Nazar Oliveira Roca, Professor, Nova University, Portugal

15.30-16.30 Opening Ceremony of the Exhibition ―Solovki – The Miracle of the Russian

North‖

16.30-17.00 European Landscape Convention as a Support to Cultural Landscape

Management – Slovakia Case Study

Ms Pavlina Misikova, National Coordinator of the European Landscape

Convention, Ministry of Environment, Bratislava, Slovakia

17.00-17.30 Role of Museum-reserves in the Cultural Landscape Preservation

Mr Vladimir Gritsenko, Director, Kulikovo Battlefield Museum-Reserve,

Russia

17.30-18.00 Cultural Landscapes in the World Heritage List

Ms Marina Kuleshova, Chief, Cultural Landscape Management Department,

Heritage Institute, Moscow

18.00–19.00 Performance of ―Saucejas‖ Folk Music Group, Latvia

19.00–21.30 Dinner for Seminar Participants




12

Wednesday March 2, 2011 Venue Heritage Institute, 2 Kosmonavtov st.

IV. Practical Issues of the World Heritage Site Management and Monitoring

Co-chairing

Mr. Igor MAKOVETSKY, President, Russian National Committee for World Heritage,

Moscow, Russia

Mr. Igor CHARNYAUSKI, Head, Department of Historical and Cultural Heritage

Management, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Belarus, Minsk


Presentations by participants 15 min

9.30-10.00 Contemporary Problems of the World Heritage Sites Preservation in

Russia

Mr Nikolai Maksakovsky, Chief, Department of Unique Historic and Natural

Areas, Heritage Institute, Moscow, Russia

10.00-11.30 Presentations by the CIS Country Representatives

Azerbaijan Icherisheher – Living History. Balanced Conservation and Development

Mr.Anar A.Guliyev, Head, Scientific Researching and International Relations

Department, Administration of State Historical-Architectural Reserve

―Icherisheher‖ under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Azerbaijan

Cultural and Historic Heritage of the Gobustan Reserve and its Protection

in the Context of New Global Challenges

Mr Fazil Mammadov, Senior Consultant, Planning, Restoration and

Assessment Division of the Cultural Heritage Department of the Ministry of

Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Azerbaijan

Armenia

Historic and Cultural Museum-Reserves as the Guarantors of Effective

Management, Preservation, Utilization and Enhancement of the Cultural

Heritage

Mr Vladimir Pogosyan, Acting Director, Agency for Historical Environment

Protection and Historical and Cultural Museum-Reserves of the Ministry of

Culture of the Republic of Armenia

Legal and Regulatory Framework and Practice of the Historic and

Cultural Heritage Protection in the Republic of Armenia

Mr Armenak Sargsyan, Chief, Department of Cultural Heritage and

Traditional Crafts of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Armenia




13

10.00-11.30 Presentations by the CIS Country Representatives

Belarus

Legal Issues and Regulation of the World Heritage Sites Management in

the Republic of Belarus

Mr Igor Charnyauski, Head, Department on Historic and Cultural Heritage

Management and Restoration, Ministry of Culture

Revitalization or „New Life‟ of the World Heritage Sites in Belarus

Ms Alla Stashkevich, Head, Department for Historic and Cultural Heritage

Management, Institute for Culture

11:30 -12.00 Coffee/tea

12.00-13.30

Presentations by the CIS Country Representatives

Republic of Moldova

Preservation of the Cultural Heritage in the Republic of Moldova:

Contemporary Problems

Mr Sergius Ciocanu, Chief, Department of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of

Culture of the Republic of Moldova

Orheiul Vechi Cultural and Natural Reserve: Problems of Management

and World Heritage Nomination

Mr Georghe Postica, Vice-Minister, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of

Moldova

Ukraine

Concept of Preservation of the World Heritage Sites in the Kyev City

Master Plan

Ms Elena Serdyuk, Director, Research Institute for Monument Preservation,

Kyev

Problems and Perspectives of Catacomb Complex Preservation and Use in

the Keyv-Pechery Monastery

Mr Timur Bobrovsky, Deputy Director, Research Institute for Monument

Preservation, Kyev

Russian Federation

Landscape Management Plan in the Contemporary Museum-reserve

Development (Case Study of the Kizhi World Heritage Site)

Ms Tatiana Nezvitskaya, Deputy Director, Department on Historic and

Natural Heritage Preservation, Kizhi Historic, Architectural and Ethnographic

Museum-reserve, Petrozavodsk




14

On Specific Areas Protection – Sacred Sites Preservation (Case Study of

Solovetsky Archipelago)

Mr Vyacheslav Stolyarov, Aide to Vicar for Heritage Preservation, Saviour

Transfiguration Solovetsky Monastery, Moscow

13.30-14.30 Lunch

V. Discussion on Major Problems of World Heritage Site Management and

Optional Solutions

Moderators

Mr Vladimir KALUTSKOV, Leading Researcher, Department of Physical Geography and

Landscape Science, Moscow State University, Russia

Ms Marina KULESHOVA, Chief, Department of Cultural Landscape Management, Heritage

Institute, Moscow, Russia

Presentations by participants 15 min including discussion

14.30-16.30 Russian World Heritage Sites Preservation Issues

Mr Alexey Butorin, President, Natural Heritage Protection Fund, Moscow

Altaisky Biosphere Reserve and the Teletskoe Lake: Preservation and

Development, Status and Trends of Management of the World Heritage

Site

Mr Igor Kalmykov, Director, Altaisky State Natural Biosphere Reserve,

Gorno-Altaisk

Some Problems of Management Plan Elaboration (Kizhi Pogost Case

Study)

Mr Alexander Lyubimtsev, Chief Guardian of the Immobile Monuments,

Kizhi Historic, Architectural and Ethnographic Museum-reserve, Petrozavodsk

Interests of Russian Ecotourists

Mr Alexander Drozdov, Leading Researcher, Institute of Geography, Moscow

16.30-17.00 Coffee/tea

17.00-18.00 Discussion Summary Proposals to the Seminar Recommendations

19.00 -21.00

Cultural Program for Seminar Participants




15

Thursday March 3, 2011 Venue The Moscow State Integrated Art and Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape

Museum-Reserve ―Kolomenskoye‖. 39 Prospekt Yu.V. Andropova

VI. Comprehensive Study Visit to the World Heritage Site (Impact Assessment

Case Study)

Co-Chairing

Ms. Lyudmila KOLESNIKOVA, Director General, The Moscow State Integrated Art and

Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve, Moscow

Ms. Marina GROMOVA, Director General, National Kyev-Pechery Historical and Cultural

Reserve, Kyev, Ukraine


Presentations by participants 15 min

10.30-11.00

11.00-11.30

11.30-12.30

Management Problems of the „Kolomenskoe‟ World Heritage Site and

Integrated Approach to their Comprehensive Resolution

Ms Lyudmila Kolesnikova, Director General, The Moscow State Integrated

Art and Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve,

Russia

Contemporary Legal and Operational Activities for Improving

Management of the World Heritage Site – Kyev: Saint Sofia Cathedral,

Kyev-Pechery Monastery and its Surroundings

Ms Marina Gromova, Director General, National Kyev-Pechery Historical

and Cultural Reserve, Kyev, Ukraine

The Museum in a Historic and Cultural Landscape of the World Heritage

Site

Mr Sergey Klimov, Director, National Historic and Cultural Nesvizh Reserve,

Belarus

Inventorying and Documenting Historic and Cultural Heritage in the

Republic of Armenia

Mr Hakob Simonyan, Director, Scientific Research Centre of Historical and

Cultural Heritage of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Armenia

Impact of Tourism Development on the Heritage Sites

Mr Pavel Shulgin, Deputy Director on Research, Heritage Institute, Moscow

12.30-13.00 Coffee/Tea




16

VII. Conclusion on Management of the Heritage Sites in the Context of Global

Challenges

Co-charing

Mr Pavel SHULGIN, Deputy Director, Heritage Institute, Moscow, Russia

Ms. Tatiana NEZVITSKAYA, Deputy Director, Kizhi Museum Reserve, Petrozavodsk,

Russia

Interventions by participants 5 min

13.00-14.30

Summary and Plan for the Foresight Activities in the Management

Comments and Proposals by Seminar Participants

Adoption of the Seminar Recommendations

14.30-16.00 Specific Problems of the WHS Management and Optional Solutions

Field Excursion in the Kolomenskoe Museum-Reserve

Visiting sites

Tsar‘s Yard (Gosudarev Dvor), Church of Ascension, Natural Monuments,

House of Peter the Great, Museum of Wooden Architecture, Proviant Yard

(Sytny Dvor)

16.00-16:30 Farewell Reception




17

Expert Papers

Herve Barre

Heritage Preservation and Sustainable Tourism Development in the Context of Global

Challenges: UNESCO Strategies and Programs 18

Grigory Ivliev

Cultural Policy and Legislation in the Heritage Sphere 25

Vladimir Krogius

Urbanization and Heritage Preservation 29

Marina Kuleshova

Cultural Landscapes in the World Heritage List 38

Jorgen Primdahl, Simon Swaffield

Global Transformations of Rural Cultural Landscape – Main Drivers and

Management Challenges 46

Zoran Roca, Maria de Nazar Oliveira Roca

Cultural Identity and Terraphilia 58




18

Heritage Preservation and Sustainable Development

of Tourism in the Context of Global Challenges:

UNESCO Strategies and Programmes

Hervé Barré

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, France

Mr Deputy Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation,

Mr. Chairman of the Russian Federation State Duma Committee on Cultural Affairs

Mr Director of the Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage,

Excellences,

Participants and organizers,

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure for me to be here in Moscow to represent UNESCO and the World

Heritage Centre at this Regional Seminar to address this distinguished gathering of CIS countries

World Heritage Site managers, public authorities and experts in heritage preservation on the

timely and pertinent theme of ―Safeguarding World Heritage in the Context of New Global

Challenges‖.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks on behalf of UNESCO and Mr. Francesco

Bandarin, UNESCO‘s Assistant Director General for Culture and Director of the World Heritage

Centre to the Organizing Committee of this seminar and the Russian Research Institute for

Cultural and Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev for hosting this meeting.

As the World Heritage Convention approaches universal ratification (185 States Parties

on a total of 193 UNESCO Member States), the 911 properties inscribed on the List are facing

new emerging challenges among which tourism is one of the most pressing, both as a threat and

as an opportunity. This new challenge is at the heart of the reflection on the Future of the

Convention and its relationship with sustainable development.

In my presentation, I will briefly recall the goals of the 1972 Convention and examine the

major challenges that tourism poses on the heritage properties. I will then expose the World

Heritage Strategy and programmes that respond to the challenges of tourism in relation to the

heritage preservation.

The World Heritage List today includes 911 properties inscribed, with 704 cultural, 180

natural and 27 mixed properties; 151 State parties have inscribed sites, for a total of 185 States

that have ratified the Convention.

The World Heritage Convention(1)

• An agreement, a legal instrument that imposes binding legal commitments that set out the

duties of States Parties and UNESCO – World Heritage Centre in implementing the

Convention.

• Each State Party to the Convention ―recognizes the duty of ensuring the identification,

protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the

cultural and natural heritage‖ (Article 4 of the Convention).

The World Heritage Convention(2)

• Its central objective is to preserve the Outstanding Universal Value of properties. This

refers to their ―integrity‖, authenticity‖ and ―sense of place‖.




19

• Each State Party shall endeavor ―to adopt a general policy which aims to give cultural

and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection

of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes‖ (Article 5 of the Convention).

I would like to recall that this Convention conveys the idea of a collective responsibility for

heritage preservation, and is founded on the premise that certain places on Earth are of

Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and therefore, form part of the common heritage of

humanity, its ―public good‖.

Two main missions: potentially conflicting

• Preserving the integrity and authenticity of the properties – OUV;

• Providing access to the largest public:

- for its understanding of the value of these sites and to share its values as a human

experience

- for social, cultural and economic development through tourism.

Tourism, when inappropriately managed, represents a threat resulting from human

activity like building and development, infrastructures, pollution, as opposed to climate change,

natural events, and disasters that do not depend on human decisions. Tourism policies result

from human conception and decision. This is why we can mitigate the threats from tourism

through improved management capacities coupled with political will.

The state of tourism in terms of flux is arithmetically implacable:

Tourism: an opportunity and a threat(1)

• International tourist arrivals doubled between 1990 and 2009 reaching 880 million

visitors – 4 billion domestic tourists;

• The share in international tourist arrivals in emerging and developing countries increased

from 32% in 1990 to 47% in 2009;

• Gross worldwide tourism receipts increased from 1998 to 2008 to 7% and 12% for the

Least Developed Countries.

Tourism: an opportunity and a threat (2)

• There were more than one billion international arrivals in 2008 and an average yearly

increase of 4%;

• Annual average increase of 1.14% of the total world population;

• Cultural tourism: + 15%; eco-tourism + 10%;

• 2008: 1 billion visitors; 2050: 1.6 billion visitors.

The question is that the number of sites that one can visit do not significantly increase or very

slowly and that most of sites (Venice, Machu Picchu, Taj Mahal…) have limited or no

possibility of expanding the visiting area.

International tourism is mostly concentrated in urban areas that offer easy accessibility,

accommodation, or area accessible by plane or road. But we know that many World Heritage

Sites insufficiently accessible or promoted do not receive enough tourists, but this is another

debate.

Do we have the right instrument to cope with the dramatic increase in numbers of tourists?

• Machu Picchu: The number of visitors increased two-fold between 2000 and 2008 to

860 000 visitors per year;




20

• Angkor: The number of visitors increased from 7 600 in 1993 to 1 million in 2008;

• According to the Periodic Report for Europe 2005 – 2006: ―World Heritage sites in

Europe are predominantly used for visitor attraction‖.

Main challenges of heritage preservation and tourism:

• Impact on heritage values of cultural and natural heritage: pressures related to the

volumes of tourists and to infrastructures – not respecting the core zone, inappropriate

presence of shops – commoditization of heritage;

• Impact on societies, local communities and intangible heritage: if not properly managed

tourism can damage the existence of these societies/indigenous populations, their

lifestyles, value systems, traditions and beliefs;

• Impact on the economic value and tourist attractiveness, potential for future development.

This last point is important as many emerging and developing countries still dispose of

well-preserved heritage that represents a strong potential for development, job creations and

revenue generation that could be jeopardized by ‗quick return benefits‘ and or tourism policies

that damage and spoil the destinations in the short-term. According to a survey by the global

Heritage Fund, the degradation of 200 important sites could cost developing countries more than

$100 Billion in lost revenues.

Even if tourism does not belong to the perimeter of the Convention stricto sensu, it is

clear that tourism directly impacts World Heritage. The states parties have launched ten years

ago the WH Sustainable Tourism Programme (first phase in 2001), a reflection on the

relationship between World Heritage, sustainable development and sustainable tourism in order

to elaborate responses to the challenges of tourism.

Based on the past experience of pilot projects implemented by UNESCO, WHC including

field Offices – and the Moscow office in particular, very dynamic and inventive – and within the

World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Programme, often in cooperation with the UNWTO and

UNEP, it is possible to draw a picture of what is the strategy to meet the challenges of tourism.

World Heritage response to the challenge of tourism: the strategy

• ―The objective is to ensure an appropriate and equitable balance between conservation,

sustainability and development, including tourism, so that World Heritage properties can

be protected through appropriate activities contributing to the social and economic

development and the quality of life of the communities‖ (World Heritage and sustainable

development, Paraty, Brazil, March 2010);

• Proposing best practice policy guidelines for managing tourism compatible with the

Convention‘s rules;

• Proposing guidance for elaborating tourism management plans;

• Considering tourism as a full component of the World Heritage; integrate tourism in

management plans;

• Considering tourism as a tool for heritage preservation, promotion, dialogue between

cultures and civilizations and development;

• Making the tourism industry an ally in heritage protection to achieve the Convention‘s

goals;

• Developing ownership among resident populations for involving them and having them

benefit tourism;

• Raising awareness of World Heritage among the tourism industry and tourists to develop

responsible behavior at sites;




21

• Developing education, training and capacity building to prepare appropriate management

plans;

• Developing research activities on

- the financing of heritage preservation by the tourism industry and the tourists, the

‗main users‘ of heritage

- the economic value of heritage;

• Developing large partnerships: tourism industry, UN Agencies, States Parties, resident

communities.

Lessons learned from workshops, case studies, field experience

UNESCO – WHC added value and lessons learned

Sustainable development of tourism means preserving heritage as a touristic/economic resource

for the long-term;

• Include Convention‘s principles in tourism policies and projects;

• Develop collaborative and participatory processes with resident populations to

- conceive the strategy and plan to ―empower‖ them on a long-term basis and

- give them the ―ownership‖ of the activities (sustainability of the tourism activity);

• Avoid the ―shelf syndrome‖ - too many management plans never implemented.

Experience acquired from capacity building workshops on management plans and field

projects were very useful to identify what is needed or not by the site managing teams,

specifically with regard to ―principles‖, ―policy guidance‖. The lists of ―what to do‖ for

managing heritage may be useful, but what the site managers want are responses to questions of

‗how to do‘, in terms of ‗operational guidelines‘ taking place between general principles and

operational tools.

UNESCO – WHC added value

There is no ‗one best practice policy‘ but many situations and contexts based on technical

proficiencies, the local and national creativity, historical and traditional knowledge and

existence;

• Tourism planning defines a vision for tourism and other public use development and

management;

• Principles of ‗value based management‘ and ‗limit of acceptable change‘.

Actions and programmes on heritage and tourism concern not only World Heritage but

all forms of heritage, including landscapes and intangible heritage. The World Heritage

Committee has expressed that the scope of management increasingly encompasses all forms of

heritage, with World Heritage Sites being the ‗core‘ of a cultural and natural system to be

protected and enhanced for tourism purposes.

The Committee also has expressed the wish for a better cooperation between the different

UNESCO Conventions, in particular the 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of Intangible

Heritage, and the 2005 Convention on the Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.

Actions and Programmes:

• World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Programme;

• Standard-setting instrument on heritage preservation and sustainable development of

tourism;

• Global Partnership for Sustainable Tourism;

• UNESCO Field projects;

• Millennium Development Goals ―culture and development‖ projects.




22

The World Heritage Committee, at its 34th

session in Brasilia, in July 2010 adopted a

Decision by which it ―decides to conclude the World Heritage Tourism Programme (first phase)

and requests the World Heritage Centre to convene a new and inclusive Programme on World

Heritage and Sustainable Tourism‖. Included in the annex of the Decision is a document of

recommendations that proposes Policy orientations on the relationship between World Heritage

and tourism that can be considered a first step for the new Tourism Programme.

World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Programme (1)

• Recommendations from international workshops – 2007/2009: ―Policy orientations‖ on

the relationship between WH and tourism, annexed to Decision 34 COM 5F.2 World

Heritage Committee 34th session, Brasilia, July 2010.

• ―The responses of World Heritage to Tourism‖ on management include:

- work closely with the tourism sector;

- include local communities in the planning and management of all aspects of

properties;

- be informed of the experiences of tourists to the visitation of the property;

- improve the prevention and management of tourism threats and impacts;

- base planning on the OUV protection of the property.


Responsibilities of the World Heritage Convention are to

• Set frameworks and policy approaches;

• Confirm that properties have adequate mechanisms to address tourism before they are

inscribed on the World Heritage List;

• Monitor the impact of tourism activities upon OUV through indicators for state of

conservation reporting;

• Cooperate with other international organizations;

• Assist States Parties at sites to access support and advice on good practices.

The second annex to the mentioned Decision of the Brasilia Committee proposes

programme elements for the new Tourism Programme:


• By the same Decision, the WHC requests the World Heritage Centre to convene a new

and inclusive tourism programme, to outline the objectives and approaches and establish

a steering group composed of interested States Parties and WHC.

• Programme elements of the new tourism programme include:

- Adoption and dissemination of standards and principles relating to sustainable tourism at

World Heritage Sites;

- Support for the incorporation of appropriate tourism management into the workings of

the Convention;

- Strategic support for the development of training and guidance materials for national

policy agencies and site managers;

- Provision of advice on the cost-benefit impact of World Heritage inscription and WH

branding.

A UNESCO recommendation on tourism is a new and innovative initiative that will fill a

gap among existing recommendations and conventions on heritage preservation. It will also

complete the many existing international (including at UN and UNWTO level) and regional




23

resolutions that are either economy centered, fail to mention both cultural and natural heritage, or

only serve as indicative charters or codes of conduct.

A UNESCO recommendation on heritage and tourism:

• WH Committee – 34th session, Brasilia – ―invites the Director General of UNESCO to

consider the feasibility of a recommendation on heritage preservation and sustainable

development of tourism‖;

• Consultative process includes UNWTO, UNEP, ICOMOS, IUCN, ICCROM etc.;

• Preliminary study on the technical and legal aspects relating to the desirability of a

standard-setting instrument accompanied by a proposal for a recommendation to be

presented to the Executive Board (May 2010) and General Conference (October 2010).

Recommendation on heritage and tourism: Rationale

• To propose policy guidelines under the form of an international recommendation adopted

by 193 States to appropriately regulate the issues in question;

• To encompass all forms of heritage: natural heritage, tangible and intangible cultural

heritage, cultural objects;

• When the recommendation is adopted, the General Conference will invite Member States

to take steps towards applying the norms included in the recommendation in national and

local laws;

• No appropriate international instrument currently exists to assist member States meet the

pressing challenges that tourism poses on heritage preservation;

• Priority given to heritage preservation on tourism development – impact studies,

management plans.

Other programmes and initiatives: Global Partnership

• The Global Partnership on Sustainable Tourism is a coalition of States, UN Agencies,

international business and non-governmental organizations on the initiative of UNEP in

cooperation with UNWTO and UNESCO;

• The objective of the Partnership is to build synergies and partnerships worldwide for

ensuring the long-term economic viability of tourism through the implementation of

projects;

• Focus on promoting policy framework, facilitating climate change adaptation, promoting

sustainable tourism as a means for poverty alleviation, facilitating the promotion of

cultural and natural heritage to make sustainability a part of finance and investment.

UNESCO Field Projects:

- ―Promoting Roads of Culture and Tourism in Armenia for Sustainable Development and

Dialogue‖;

- Promote sustainable tourism at World Heritage sites in Armenia with a view to

contributing to the economic and social development of local communities and their

active participation in conservation and management of sites. Link between the 1972 and

2003 Conventions;

- ―Mobilizing Cultural, Touristic and Educational Resources for Local Sustainable

Development in the Sheki Region, Azerbaijan‖;

- Enhance the conservation, appropriation and sustainable use of heritage; diversify the

region‘s economic base; promote heritage tourism, visibility of Sheki Region and

Azerbaijan at international level.




24

Millennium Development Goal ―culture and development‖ projects:

• 18 projects on the ―culture for development‖ theme – including World Heritage – for the

achievement of the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations;

• Implemented by the UN teams in cooperation with national and local authorities on 3 to 4

years with a budget of 3 to 8 million US $;

• Harnessing culture (intangible and tangible heritage, cultural industries, handicraft, and

museums) for development ―understood not simply in terms of economic growth, but

also as a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual

life‖.

Other programmes and initiatives: Examples of titles of MDG projects

• ―Creative Industries Support Programme‖, Cambodia;

• ―The China Culture and Development Framework‖, China;

• ―Development of Cultural Diversity to reduce poverty and promote social inclusion‖,

Ecuador;

• ―The Dahshur World Heritage site Mobilization for Cultural Heritage for Community

Development‖, Egypt;

• ―Harnessing Diversity for Sustainable Development and Social Change‖, Ethiopia;

• ―Creativity and Cultural Identity for local development‖, Honduras;

• ―Sustainable cultural tourism in Namibia‖, Namibia;

• ―Culture and Development in the occupied Palestinian Territory‖;

• Alliance for Cultural Tourism in Eastern Anatolia‖, Turkey;

Other programmes and initiatives: UNESCO/UNITWIN network

• A world wide-system of cooperation between 22 universities in the field of ‗culture,

tourism and development‘ from Argentina, Australia, Cambodia, Canada, Egypt,

England, France, Hungary, Gabon, Israel, Morocco, Palestine, Panama, Russia, Spain,

Italy, Gabon, Tunisia et al.;

• Sharing educational experiences, producing and providing education modules and tolls

on sustainable development of tourism in particular. Preparing a module at the masters

level on ‗tourism management at World Heritage sites‘;

• Meetings and seminars: Paris (2005), Gréoux les Bains, France (2006), Rimini, Italy

(2007), Quebec, Canada (2010).

Thank you for your attention.




25

Cultural Policy and Legislation

in the Heritage Sphere

Grigory Ivliev Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Culture, Russian Federation

Preservation of the cultural heritage sites is one of the vital tasks facing modern state and

society.

In the Russian Federation legal protection of the cultural heritage by state is one of the

priority tasks for the federal governmental bodies, regional authorities and local municipal self-

government.

The declaration that the cultural heritage sites (monuments of history and culture) of the

peoples of the Russian Federation represent an outstanding universal value for the entire multi-

national population of Russia and comprise the inalienable part of the World cultural heritage is

set in the preamble of the Federal Law adopted on 25 June 2002 #73-ФЗ ―On objects of cultural

heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation‖.

Russia embodies colossal cultural heritage. At present the state protection is extended

over 90,000 monuments of history and culture, one-fourth of them (23,397) has the status of

national (federal level) monuments, and 15 unique cultural objects are inscribed in the UNESCO

World Heritage List.

Russia‘s cultural heritage is great and diverse but highly vulnerable. Thus, according to

the statistical data available, only 10-15 % of cultural heritage properties are in fair state of

protection, while almost 70% of the total number of cultural heritage monuments and sites need

urgent assistance measures to prevent their destruction, and it is as many as 150-200 objects that

are lost every year1. Therefore we are to bend every effort to provide the satisfactory level of

preservation for cultural heritage in Russia, including improving protection by the relevant

legislation.

It is worth to consider that the year of 2011, announced as the Year of Historic and

Cultural Heritage in the CIS countries2, was marked by the important event in the cultural life of

the country: on February 23, 2011 there was adopted the Federal Law #19-ФЗ ‖On incorporation

of the amendments in the Federal Law ―On museum fund and museums in the Russian

Federation‖. This law has set regulation on the legal establishment of the museum-reserves - the

unique institutions of culture protecting the outstanding historic and cultural heritage sites. With

the adoption of this Federal Law the activities of the museum-reserves and museum-estates (no

less than 140 sites can be counted today in Russia) have obtained the legal status.

The improvement of the fundamental sectoral Federal Law #73-ФЗ ―On objects of

cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation‖

(inacted on 25 June 2002) is in progress as well.

The Draft of the Federal Law ―On incorporation of the amendments in the Federal Law

#73-ФЗ ―On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the

Russian Federation‖ has been approved on March 17, 2011 in the first reading by the State

1 Data as per 27 May 2009 from the information source in Russian: Spravka k zasedaniyu kollegii

Ministerstva kultury Rossiiskoi Federatsii ―On urgent problems of the restoration in the Russian

Federation today‖ 2 Recommendations by the Chamber of Historic and Cultural Heritage and Modern Art under the Forum

of Creative and Academic Intelligentsia of the CIS Countries




26

Duma. Development of this draft stems from the need to improve and harmonize provisions of

the above-mentioned law.

The Draft Law includes the following statutory provisions and amendments:

- there are set liabilities (charges) for the preservation of the monument of history

and culture and stipulation of access of citizens to all cultural heritage sites, and

any type of legal transaction therewith (according to current legislation these

charges were stipulated only in case of privatization, gratuitous use or lease of the

property);

- there is ensured a transfer of the liabilities (charges) to any new owner or user of the

property by entry of these liabilities (public duties) in the Uniform State Register of

the Immovable Property and National Land Cadastre;

- there is introduced the unconditional obligation to register the contract with the

owner on stipulation of the effective liabilities (charges).

In addition to the current law the draft law is provisioning the following acts:

- privatization of the cultural heritage property solely on the competition basis (by

tender or auction);

- recognition (assumption) of any transaction lacking contract on stipulation of the

effective liabilities (charges) in relation to the cultural heritage site, null and void;

- regulation on right to alienation of the property for compensation in case of failure

to conform with the liabilities (charges) stipulated for this specific property.

The draft law fixes the rules of access rights granted to the citizens in relation to the

cultural heritage sites, established by the authorized agency for protection of cultural heritage

sites (in respect to the houses and private quarters, the rules of access are negotiated and agreed

upon between the property owner and the relevant agencies).

However, it is to be emphasized that the main objective in the elaboration of this draft

law was the introduction of the special provisions that appeal to owners of the cultural heritage

monuments and sites to make investments into their preservation (taking into consideration the

major deficit of the state budget allocated for solution of this problem), as well as regulation on

subsequent important liabilities and commitments for users or owners of the properties.

It should be mentioned that Federal Law #73-ФЗ of 25 June 2002 provides both

individual and collective legal owner or user of the national (federal) cultural heritage the right to

get compensation of the investments and restoration works on the basis of the Contract of the

gratuitous use of the monument or site.

However, in the current legislation on the cultural heritage this compensation norm is the

only one to motivate the bona fide owners and users of the cultural heritage to make investments

into its conservation. In fact, these are precisely the stimulation and remuneration measures that

shall be introduced and expanded in the legislation of the Russian Federation.

In this particular way some innovative norms are to be introduced to the Tax Code of the

Russian Federation by the amendments in the Federal Law #73-ФЗ to regulate reimbursement of

the tax payments (charges) to the tax payer in the following aggregate compensation:

- actual expenditures on the cultural heritage acquisition at the territory of the Russian

Federation, including interest for loans and credits received from the credit or the other

financial organizations of the Russian Federation specifically for the acquisition of the

cultural heritage monument or site;

- total expenditures on the works for restoration or conservation of the cultural heritage

monument or site;

- total expenditures on collecting information data on the cultural heritage monument or

site into the National Land Cadastre and on registration of the property rights in the




27

Uniform State Register of the Immovable Property (real estate status and transactions

therewith);

- expenditures on providing access of citizens to the cultural heritage monument or site

according to the national (federal) legislation of the Russian Federation. This provision is

very important as it ensures the compensation of the nuisances to organize an access to

the private house or office, including the private land area where the state archeological

property is located, as this access is the non-conditioned requirement according to the

legislation.

The abovementioned norms specify the detailed list of documents necessary for the bona

fide owners or users to exercise all the relevant legal rights and liabilities.

The modifications into the Tax Code of the Russian Federation specify and depict the

tax-exempt works at the cultural heritage monuments and sites including the archaeological field

works previously unjustly excluded from the tax-exempt activities in the Tax Code of the

Russian Federation. The abovementioned tax exemption is also suggested for activities aimed at

conservation of the registered cultural heritage properties.

In addition, the amendments to be introduced into the Federal Law ―On privatization of the

state and municipal property‖ guarantee deduction of the expenses necessary for restoration and

rehabilitation from the estimated cost of the cultural heritage property under privatization.

Observation of the solutions of the similar problems in the foreign countries confirms that

provisions stated by the draft law for stimulating owners or users of the cultural heritage,

correspond to the accepted legal regulation in Western Europe and America and the tendency to

search the incentives for raising awareness of the owners of cultural monuments and heritage

sites for their better protection and conservation.

Preparation for the second reading of the Draft Federal Law is performed by the RF State

Duma Committee on Culture in cooperation with the representatives of the Ministry of Culture,

National Agency for Heritage Preservation (RosOkhranKultura), National Agency for Land

Cadastre (RosKadastr), Ministry of Finances and other authorities of the national, regional and

local level, research institutions, public organizations and other stakeholders in the heritage

preservation. Substantial modifications and improvements were made in the text of the draft law,

including as follows:

- comprehensive concept on ‗territory of the cultural heritage site‘ was re-introduced into

the Law, its legal definition, as well as regulation on it‘s spatial delimitation,

differentiated regime of land use and heritage protection within its borders coordinated

with the Building Code of the Russian Federation and legislation on cultural heritage

protection;

- state protection measures and conservation of the archaeological heritage sites were

considered and stipulated;

- common national body recommended to be established for the cultural heritage

protection, control and management;

- special regulation is proposed to establish an executive power body under the regional

authority to take responsibilities for protection, use, enhancement and promotion of the

monuments of history and culture. The criteria for establishment of such special regional

body include either presence in the region of the outstanding cultural heritage site,

inscribed in the World Heritage List or National List of most valuable objects, or

registration over 100 monuments of cultural heritage at the territory of this region;

- state control for maintenance, preservation, use and state protection of the cultural

heritage is assigned to the federal body for protection of cultural heritage and is executed

via the functional regional bodies;




28

- norms that duplicate currently adopted regulations issued by the Government of the

Russian Federation and the national (federal) protection bodies are removed from the

Law, these norms refer to protection zones development and establishment around the

cultural heritage sites and the historic and cultural assessment procedures;

- procedure of historic and cultural assessment under the state jurisdiction is re-introduced;

- regulation on the Uniform State Register of the cultural heritage properties was reviewed

and amended according to the Statute therein, approved by the Decree of the Government

of the Russian Federation;

- specification of the conservation measures and activities for cultural heritage preservation

was re-introduced into the legislation; the notion on ‗activities for utilization of the

cultural heritage monument or site‘ was clearly defined;

- rules of optional public discussions of the professional historic and cultural assessment

were removed;

- regulation on protection under the state jurisdiction referring to specific cultural heritage

properties - such as ―dostoprimechatelnoe mesto‖ (heritage site), monumental art objects,

landscape architecture and park and garden art, cemeteries and single tombs, blocks of

houses and apartments is introduced;

- rules are proposed for introduction in the Building Code of the Russian Federation

referring to construction and infrastructure development within the borders of historic

settlements, in the buffer and protection zones of cultural heritage sites, within the

heritage site borders in coordination with the legislation on the cultural heritage

protection;

- draft law provisions for amendments introduced into Tax Code of the Russian Federation

referring to tax preferences for restoration and conservation activities at the monuments

of history and culture, acquisition of the cultural heritage monuments or sites, collection

of the information data for registration in the relevant governmental registers;

- new article introduced for amendment in the Federal Law ―On National Land and

Property Cadastre‖ referring to the obligation to register data and description of the

borders of the cultural heritage sites and limitations of the real estate use within the

territory of the cultural heritage site;

- transitional articles introduced for establishment of the protection status of the newly

identified cultural heritage sites.

Draft law was aiming at amendments in the Federal Law of August 8, 2001 #128-ФЗ ―On

licensing specific types of activities‖ introducing the obligation to license both restoration works

and cultural heritage protection activities, as the latter activity is still non-licensed. As a result of

this substantial work of the Committee on Culture under the RF State Duma the necessary

amendments on licensing the cultural heritage protection activity was introduced and adopted in

the Federal Law ―On licensing specific types of activities‖ in its first reading on October 8, 2010.

These provisions will exert the state control of any activity and works at the monuments of

history and culture.

We believe that amendments introduced by the draft law into various legal acts of the

Russian Federation will contribute to improvement of cultural heritage preservation and legal

protection in Russia. This draft law particularly refers to the civic activities in relation to the

cultural heritage as a special type of asset, and encouragement of extra-budget funding due to

introduction of the economic incentives for owners or users of the cultural heritage properties to

stimulate their better conservation and protection.




29

Urbanization and Heritage Preservation

Vladimir Krogius Institute for Historical Cities Reconstruction, Russian Federation

Today, on the turn of the centuries, it is commonly recognized that the current drastic

environmental, technological and social processes turned into challenges endangering the entire

humankind. Those challenges are intimately interconnected and have become global. Notable

among those has been uncontrolled urbanization, in other words, change in the continuous

urbanization process of spontaneous nature.

It appears that urbanization is to be understood in broad terms. It is not only about

spontaneity understood literally, but rather absolute lack of control of the process concerned,

migration of refugees from starvation, natural disasters and hostilities, unauthorized construction

by the poorest citizens, although there too one could see some vestiges of management – tribal

customs, control by criminal groups, direct armed violence, etc. But still the countries

represented at this seminar face some expanded notion of spontaneity as some evil, and,

occasionally, corrupted management by the processes of urban regulation, lack of integrated

approach, sequence of activities, spontaneity or bias (unaccountable in terms of normal logics) in

the selection of the factors responsible for the managerial solutions by the respective authorized

bodies.

In the meantime, urbanization in any form continues throughout the world. In fact, when

we as members of the World Commission URBAN-21 took part in the elaboration of the World

Report on the Urban Future 21 (World Report…2000), the latter stated that the current century

will be the age of cities‘ network globalization throughout the world when the majority of the

world population lives in cities, and the number of cities with one million or more people will

exceed 350 by 2015 (which as we can see is almost the case). Attention was called to the fact

that continuous uncontrolled growth of urban population in the majority of the world is

hazardous. Along with that the great potential of the urban environment to involve new citizens

in productive activities was noted if the proper conditions are created via adequate measures of

the ―good governance‖ for sustainable urban development.

For our seminar it is essential that the Berlin Declaration on the Urban Future, adopted on

the basis of the above report in 2000, among a large number of recommendations on the most

urgent activities to respond to the challenges of uncontrolled urbanization states that «the cities

are to preserve their historical heritage, striving to become beautiful sites where art, culture,

architecture and landscape bring joy and inspiration to the citizens». The above statement, which

is regarded as one of the most important and urgent, has been made despite the most serious and

urgent problems faced by a number of cities: the poverty of the majority of the population,

deterioration of the social condition, environmental problems, propagation of diseases, inter-

ethnic and inter-confessional conflicts, seems very instructive and encouraging.

It was recognized that «no city throughout the world is free from problems and is truly

sustainable».

Let us supply some examples from the British experience of urban construction and

preservation of heritage, where the above two trends were combined for the first time in the

world. Let me quote London where modern cultural heritage conservation began as early as the

end of the 19th

century and four World Heritage Sites (Tower, Westminster, Greenwich and

Kew) have been established. It would seem that identification, preservation and management of

the historical urban environment there could receive the greatest attention, and this environment




30

itself, its traditional outlook should be universally respected. Along with that, the statement of

the outstanding British researcher of heritage Prof. Gerald Dix on the new tall buildings in

central London «indiscriminately scattered around like baggage on a railway platform,

dominating not only historic buildings but also whole districts that gave London its particular

character» has become widely known, and that was said long before the Foster «Cucumber», was

erected. The latter was jarred with the famous panoramas, including the Tower panorama from

the Thames side. Paradoxically, Dix quotes as a positive contrast to the London practice the

experience of Rome and Saint-Petersburg that retained their historical spirit with banning for

many years of all tall buildings. But the above view refers to the mid-1990s., when the

«magnificence» of the urbanization was not yet so brightly manifested in Saint-Petersburg.

A more recent example is Liverpool, which was included in the World Heritage List in

2004 as a «Maritime Mercantile City», which is a typical example of search for true values in

«historical urban landscapes» and the «site‘s spirit». Nevertheless, this site included some

particular areas – six places, or «components» with a common area of 136 ha; in this case a

considerable buffer zone was set aside (751 ha), extending up throughout the city area up to

characteristic observation points and to the middle reaches of the Mersey River whence a

beautiful panorama of the middle reaches of the Liverpool shore front can be seen. The problem

of the conservation of the «outstanding universal value» of that site started virtually upon its

inclusion in the List. The city authorities initiated development of several projects for erecting

several new tall and stylistically diverging buildings in areas being reconstructed within site

boundaries. That gave rise to active discussions and caused sending to Liverpool of the

UNESCO and ICOMOS inspecting Mission in October 2006. This Mission‘s recommendations

provided a basis for the development of a Supplemental Document for planning, which revealed

and classified the visual links of various sites and established some particular requirements for

their preservation. The above document was approved by the city authorities in 2009 but to what

extent it would be able to conserve the unique image of Liverpool as viewed from the river and

the nature of distant panoramas on the World Heritage Site is so far very dubious. In fact, the

construction of «debatable» buildings intruding into the very center of the World Heritage Site is

to be completed in 2011-2012. Then, their effect on the image of the sites could actually be

assessed. Clearly, Liverpool became one of the most characteristic examples of conflicting

trends in the conservation and development of World Heritage Sites, i.e., in big cities where it

was difficult to attain the desirable and UNESCO prescribed equilibrium between them due to

their social and economic significance and the desire to develop on the basis of investments.

In what way are those problems manifested, and these concepts may be operative in those

CIS countries whose representatives take part in the present seminar, and generally in the

countries existing in the former USSR territory in its part belonging to the region of Europe and

North America according to the UN and UNESCO classification? In this case, we have to take

into account some very specific features characteristic of urbanization in that territory. The

above mentioned World Report on the Urban Future distinguished three sets of world cities

different from one another in terms of particular stage of urbanization. Those sets comprised:

1 – cities with uncontrolled super-growth (i.e., with uncontrolled «spontaneous urbanization» in

its first meaning); 2 – cities with a dynamic development (that managed in some way to master

«uncontrolled urbanization», although the process of urbanization there continued at a slower

rate); and 3 – cities mature and weakening, facing population ageing. For each of those sets some

particular recommendations of mastering the situation were proposed, including improvement of

life and environmental conditions.

According to our tentative assessment, which hopefully will be specified by the

participants of our seminar, the process of uncontrolled super-growth of urban population in




31

combination with increasing poverty in the area under consideration is almost no longer in

evidence, if don‘t consider the uncontrolled strive of provincial regions‘ citizens to move to the

capitals of the respective countries. It appears that in a number of cities (let them be specified by

the colleagues) they are currently mastering the methods of management, ensuring dynamic

development with a continuous growth of population and preservation of a rigid limit of

insufficient financial resources‘ spending, which still cannot be regarded as increasing poverty.

However, it should be admitted that numerous cities of the region under consideration

demographically clearly belong to the third above-mentioned group of mature and weakening

cities with ageing population. In this case, one faces a sad paradox to the effect that the above

mentioned Report refers to this group of cities of the so-called «developed countries» whose

objective developmental problems are essentially mitigated or even removed owing to sufficient

funds. Those cities are ageing but according to the Report are «mature» and rich. They are in the

countries, where there is GDP per citizen more than USD $ 20,000 but as a rule - about $ 40,000

per year and where the index of the development of human potential according to the UN

classification is very high.

A number of our cities demographically belong to the third group, and in terms of the

poverty, to the first. We believe that there is the fourth set of cities – those that are still poor but

already ageing. That concept was considered with sympathy by the World Commission

developing the Report on the Urban Future in the 21st century, but it was not adopted due to the

fact that there are comparatively few such cities in the world. Presumably, the majority of the

Report‘s authors did not want to reject the elegant tripartite design of the Report, introducing

into it some «mutants» - cities that are to become richer with maturity and age but still remaining

poor. Our unique phenomenon, which can be accounted for attempt of accelerated construction

of socialism and «socialist reconstruction of the cities», was not duly assessed and accounted for

by researchers and regulators of the world urbanization process.

It became known to us at an early stage that the task of the investigation of the above

phenomenon is a kind of mutation in the development of the world city building and responses to

the challenges in that part of the world should be the taken care of our scientists – urban

planners, geographers, sociologists, etc. Hopefully, such studies are carried on and some

responses to the challenges of the 21st century will be found.

It is time we turned to the possible effect of the global challenge of spontaneous (or may

be not so spontaneous?) urbanization on the cultural and natural heritage preservation, and,

primarily those heritage sites of our countries that were included due to their outstanding

universal values in the World Heritage List and what management can and should promote better

conservation of that unique heritage.

According to our tentative assessment of potential threats for the conservation of cultural

and natural heritage are such challenges of urbanization as sub-urbanization, where the areas of

urban development are expanded and natural landscapes are destroyed; trans-regional migration

resultant in ethnic and professional minorities and «new» enforced multi-culture, income

differentiation of the population with a trend of forming new elite vs. ghetto regions;

establishment of a large number of huge multifunctional commercial and entertainment centers

with a decline of traditional network of local sites servicing the population, a sharp rise in the

number of cars and traffic collapse and a presence of former industrial (the so-called «brown»)

areas, requiring re-cultivation; construction of main communications – speed railways,

highways, pipelines, and power lines through reserved areas, traditional sites of mass recreation;

increasing problems of garbage collection and waste disposal, treatment of industrial emissions,

sewage, etc.

The above requires not only counteraction of the detrimental impact of the hazardous

processes concerned on the cultural and natural heritage, due protective measures, both at the




32

level of general area planning and regulation of construction activities, and in the development of

special legal documents regarding environmental protection, protection zoning and regulation of

town-planning and economic activities.

Among the spatial projects recently implemented in Russia involving specialists of the

Institute on Reconstruction of Historic Cities (INRECON) is the elaboration of the special

sections on situation analysis and proposals for cultural heritage protection and management on

the basis of the Building Code within the nationwide Scheme of Territorial Planning (Spatial

Planning Documentation) of the administrative units of the Russian Federation (regions, lands

and republics), аs well as municipalities (districts). The above made it possible to lay out

strategy for preservation and enhancement of cultural heritage under continuous urbanization in

urban and rural areas and also less developed inland territories.

For instance, considering the section of the Scheme of Territorial Planning of the

Vologda Region, the territory around the Village of Ferapontovo where the World Heritage Site

«Ensemble of the Ferapontov Monastery» is established , was set aside as one of the zones of the

concentration of cultural heritage sites of regional significance, with recommendations for

subsequent measures to be taken within its boundaries to protect such sites and their cultural and

natural landscapes. True, regarding the area concerned, one has to have in mind that it is not

overpopulation impact as a result of the continuous urbanization processes in combination with

the demographic problems involved, but rather excessive loss of local inhabitants, endangering

total depopulation of the rural area and the measures to be taken to consider the above situation.

The same objectives in relation to natural heritage were stated in developing the

environmental sections in a number of Schemes of Territorial Planning, including the regions

that have World Heritage Sites within their boundaries.

Unfortunately, there are no federal regulations available for the development of the

special sections of the above projects, and the latter were developed by some individual

customers or developers who recognized the importance of the above aspect of territorial

regulation in no more than one fourth of the country‘s regions (Sokhranenie i ispolzovanie,

2010). Thus, the objective of continuing large-scale work to set up strategy for protection and

use of cultural and natural heritage remains of importance. Apparently, this can be reflected in

the recommendations of our Seminar – in fact, according to information available the similar

problems are also faced by other countries, including respective World Heritage Sites.

The problem is acute of considering the requirements for the conservation of cultural

heritage under conditions of urbanization where planning and building projects are developed –

master plans of urban and rural built-up areas, the planning projects of some individual areas in

the cities and also land-use and development regulations and plans of specific land plots. This

aspect deals exactly with the World Heritage Sites, primarily, cultural heritage sites, as natural

heritage sites are normally away from built-up areas directly affected by urbanization.

In our and in other countries, the conditions for the conservation and use of the urban

World Heritage Sites are largely dependent on the master plans and other general spatial

planning documents of those cities. This to varying extent applies to Saint-Petersburg, Moscow,

Novgorod Veliky, Vladimir, Suzdal, Sergiev Posad, Kazan, Derbent, Yaroslavl, just as probably

to Baku (Azerbaijan), Echmiatsin (Armenia), Nesvizh (Belarus) and other cities with the World

Heritage Sites.

With regard to the master plans of the cities, those who are in charge of World Heritage

Sites‘ preservation are to rely upon the conservation requirements as reflected in functional

zoning regulations (including removal or at least reduction in location of «unfriendly» structures

associated with excessive development density, excessive accumulation of people,

environmental pollution, etc.); organization of the transport system (direction of the traffic along

detour routes, ensuring ready access to World Heritage Sites, ensuring mass passenger transport




33

and construction of convenient temporary parking lots, for tourist buses and private vehicles); for

construction zoning - (a distant location of the main areas designed for mass construction of

multi-storey and tall buildings from the World Heritage Sites); conservation of the environment

and engineering development and equipment of the areas.

With regard to other city building documents, decisions reflected in the Regulations for

Land Use and Development as the main regulatory enactments in terms of spatial planning that

are legally valid are of great importance to the outstanding universal value‘s conservation in the

urban World Heritage Sites. In this case it is of greatest importance to ensure general planning

documents of limitations and prescriptions developed and approved in the projects for heritage

protection zones, in particular, proposals for the regimes of land use and city limits within the

boundaries of the World Heritage Sites and their buffer zones. This meets the regulations of the

Russian law and should be observed, but actually, it is not always the case when the World

Heritage Sites conservation authorities and stakeholders do not need to control the situation.

It is of interest to know the way such problems are solved in other countries, including

the countries represented at the present seminar.

As to the above proposals on the regimes and protocols of the activities admitted in the

neighborhood of the World Heritage Sites within the city boundaries, requirements for their

development, its methodological foundations, analysis of the lessons learned represent the very

essence of the problem concerned. In this case, one has to bear in mind that a number of things

regarding these requirements, methods and experience have some features in common and

analogous sites can be used, but each of the World Heritage Sites is unique by definition, with its

own «site spirit», which requires care and consideration of the site character and application of

general approaches to the site and its surroundings.

For instance, the urbanization pressure endangering cultural heritage in the form of

excessive intensification of development of historical regions, increasing its density and the

number of storeys, functional regeneration, traffic excess, heavy environmental pollution is

clearly manifested in such great capitals with World Heritage Sites as Saint-Petersburg and

Moscow, but also (to a lesser extent) Kazan, Yaroslavl, Novgorod Veliky and Vladimir. In

smaller towns this pressure is considerably less, but there are some manifestations, and taking

into account smaller size of the built-up areas, they can also exert a notably negative effect, even

in case lower absolute parameters, on the World Heritage Sites and their surroundings – Sergiev

Posad, Derbent. Suzdal.

Let us supply at least two Russian examples. In Suzdal, one of the most charming and

preserved small Russian historic towns, it is only two components the Christorozhdestvensky

Cathedral and Spasoefimyevsky Monastery. But for them, too, and for a number of other history

and culture monuments of that city, of great importance is retaining the unique nature of its

historical and urban environment. The above involved some serious problems as a result of an

increased demand for construction of rich cottages – largely, funded by newcomers in the city.

The above construction is aggressive, without considering the environment and frequently with

destruction of some valuable elements of cultural heritage as was the case, when an access drive

to one of such cottages was constructed in a barbaric manner – the ancient mound of the Suzdal

Kremlin of the 12th

century was outrageously cut. It is shocking that the above occurs with

obvious support of the local city authorities despite the protests of the advocates of the unique

heritage of the city. Today, the status of a heritage site «Historical Center of Suzdal» has been

approved by the regional government. Will it help? We shall see.

In the city of Yaroslavl whose historical center was included in the World Heritage List

in 2005, the same body of authors developed two versions of the Project for Protection Zones of

the City Cultural Heritage Sites. The first version established and described precisely the

boundaries of the World Heritage and its buffer zone (a very rare case in our practice). That




34

version was approved by the regional government in 2008. Аnd today, the second version is on

the verge of approval. They only differ in the regime of land use and city-building limits,

permitting the construction of a number of buildings approved by the city authorities and

«forgotten» (!) in the nomination of the World Heritage Site and development, coordination and

approval of the first Protection Zone Project. True, this is a clear manifestation of continuous

active pressure on historic areas by urbanization and lack of control, or poor management of the

process concerned and conservation of cultural heritage.

Hence, the task of protective regulation regarding culture heritage sites is of such great

importance as to construction and any developments in the areas of World Heritage Sites and

their buffer zones in particular. The above applies both to the methods of development and

approval of the projects for land use, city building limits, and to an equal extent, maintaining

discipline in their implementation and constant monitoring and other forms of control.

Clearly, each country there may have its problems but it appears that a number of things

is similar and of mutual interest. In fact, in Russia today there is a problem of compatibility of

the UNESCO requirements to the conservation regimes of the sites inscribed in the World

Heritage List (on the initiative of our state – the Convention party), with internal national

mechanisms of the cultural heritage sites administration and management in conformity with the

Russian law. Not everybody is aware that the latter should be brought in conformity with the

former. As a result, some of the World Heritage sites – their particular components and elements

formally inscribed in the UNESCO List of those sites do not belong to the lists of cultural

heritage sites protected within the country or have lower level of protection. Today, the

possibility is being actively discussed and implemented at some places (for instance, in Vladimir

and Suzdal in 2008-09) of declaring complex cultural heritage sites as dostoprimechatelnoe

mesto (heritage site). The merger of the boundaries of their areas with the boundaries of the

World Heritage Sites, and the boundaries of their protection zones with the buffer zones of those

sites and lending a federal status, which would extend the higher protection level required to all

the World Heritage Sites. To date the projects for such heritage sites were approved by the local

authorities in the cities of Vladimir and Suzdal and developed for the city of Yaroslavl.

Of particular importance has recently been searching for a response to the challenges of

the conservation of the outstanding universal value of World Heritage Sites as a result of

attempts of construction of high-rise buildings in the neighborhood of those sites. This firstly

emphasizes the significance of setting aside buffer zones for those sites where such zones have

not yet been established, and secondly, suggests a new approach to determining the size of those

zones, as the visual effect of high-rise buildings may extend to vast areas. In addition to the

above-mentioned situation in London and Liverpool, conservationists throughout the world have

been actively discussing the threats to the traditional image of the World Heritage Sites in

Prague, Turin, Barcelona, Isfahan, Salvador, many other outstanding cities, and of course, in

Russia – in Saint-Petersburg and Moscow. In Saint-Petersburg, the immediate hazard seems to

have been eliminated. But in case the notorious Gazprom tower is constructed far from the

historical center of the city – a World Heritage Site – the question arises how far from the

center? In fact, the site concerned is far expanded and its components are «almost everywhere»

in the city.

The issue of the relationship between the of World Heritage Sites and the high-rise

building and the effect urbanization processes on the preservation of outstanding heritage values,

leads us to turn in the conclusive part of the report to the qualitative changes of the recent years

in the conservation community to the interaction in terms of conservation and development of

built-up areas in the environment.




35

It seems that the most significant events in this respect occurred almost simultaneously in

2005 in the middle of the first decade of the new century. The first of them was the release in

February of a drastically modified publication of the Operational Guidelines for the

Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, which as a result turned into the

―Constitution‖ of managing the World Heritage at the international level (Operational

Guidelines, 2005). It focuses on the issues of managing the sites, more rigid requirements to

control their distribution and regular reports and prompt identification of the arising threats –

new construction, etc. Subsequently, in April in Kazan, a special conference of UNESCO experts

was conducted to develop the ―outstanding universal value‖ concept as a mandatory feature of

the World Heritage Sites (Special Expert Meeting, 2005). The very need to develop it 25 years

after the beginning of inclusion of the sites that according to the Convention of 1972, are to have

this value looked paradoxical and was evidence of the recognition of re-evaluation of a number

of original concepts in the area of cultural and natural heritage at the international level. Finally,

Vienna held a UNESCO conference that addressed the issues of the interaction of the World

Heritage Sites and modern architecture, and adopted the Vienna Memorandum. The

Memorandum closely connected the above issue with the need for a balanced management of

another terminological and conceptual innovation of world conservationism – the historical

urban landscape (Vienna Memorandum, 2005).

The recent years have seen a number of meetings and discussions of some serious

challenges of modernity in relation to cultural and natural heritage, and some new documents

appeared that merit close consideration. Among them are the regional UNESCO conferences

discussing the historical urban landscapes held in Israel, Russia and Vietnam. Also worthy of

mentioning are some scientific symposiums by ICOMOS on «Changing World. Changing Views

of Heritage, the Effect of Global Change on the Cultural Heritage», which addressed various

changes affecting the preservation of cultural heritage – ecological, technological and social

changes. In addition, to our very important seminar, the very beginning of the second decade will

be marked with the discussion at the next ICOMOS General Assembly of a very curious and

unusual theme: «Heritage as a Guide of Development»; and the General UNESCO conference in

2011, planning adoption of ―Recommendations on Historical Urban Landscapes». And it is

exactly today that multi-faceted and complicated discussion of the draft Recommendation in the

World Heritage Convention party states is taking place.

The above testifies to implementation of some serious revisions in the concepts of the

conservation community in relation to interactions between the conservation and development of

our environment in the modern world. The present-day agenda features the problems of a new

paradigm of heritage and development in heritage conservationists of Tolerance for Change,

mastering the skill of «managing changes» in historic environment.

Moreover, the most gallant members of our community are confident that this is exactly

the urban cultural heritage is to be regarded as a sample of sustainable development to be guided

in the modern world. The above approach is exemplified by adoption at the latest session of the

ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on historic cities and villages (CIVVIH), held in

2010 in the city of Valletta on Malta, of a document entitled: «The Historic City as a Reference

Model for Sustainable Urban Development Policies» (The Historic City, 2010).

The basis of the above recommendation are multiple changes experienced by historic

cities within the centuries of their existence, the fact that they are firmly rooted in the

environment, and multifunctional, combining tradition and flexibility, the environment being

commensurate to the man, experience in the utilization of traditional materials by the man, some

peculiar local power, manifested in the perception of the «local spirit». According to the authors

of the above documents, these properties, used creatively, can provide the sought-for




36

sustainability of the urban environment anew or in the course of active transformation, the urban

environment.

The above, it seems, urges the conservationists and managers of the urban heritage, and

primarily the World Heritage Cities, to turn to the investigation and the preservation of that

heritage in a maximally broad framework, without being limited by real estate and, mostly,

authentic sites. Of interest and meriting attention are multi-layered sites and copies reproducing

the originals in case the latter have been lost as well as intangible reminiscences of the past

condition of the urban environment (supported by evidence available in the movable heritage

items), legendary and even mythological and reflections of historical motifs in modern

architectural and decorative work and traditional activities, life style in their historic urban

environment (either authentic or reproduced). Along with that the leading role of tangible

authentic components of the cultural heritage, whose value could be reliably recorded and which

can be controlled. The preservation of other heritage components shall be definitely prescribed in

the recommendations of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee via their manifestations in the

space material environment.

Thus, the following recommendations could be proposed for the decisions of our seminar

regarding registration and management of the World Heritage Sites with special reference to

change trends in the urbanization process:

1. Taking actual measures for mastering at all levels of the management of World

Heritage Sites and adoption of the management regulations contained in the documents of the

World Heritage Center of UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN.

2. Mandatory setting up of inter-agency commissions for the management of each of the

World Heritage Sites, and also development and adoption for each of them of a special

regulatory enactment as the most essential part of the Management Plan.

3. Conduct a feasibility study for World Heritage Sites being assigned the status of

heritage sites to be stated in the national legislation with regard to all these territories‘ buildings,

structures and plots of land so that the protective status should be extended to all these items

within the boundaries of the above territories.

4. Regulate and limit the setting aside of the World Heritage buffer zones in conformity

with the national protective zoning of cultural and natural sites. The absence of buffer zones can

only be justified by a special decision of the World Heritage Committee‘s Decision that they are

not needed.

5. The decisions for the management of the World Heritage Sites and setting aside of new

sites to be included the Tentative Lists of future World Heritage Sites as based on studies and

conclusions of historical and cultural and environmental assessment should be observed on a

mandatory basis.

6. Master actively the methodology of the management of the World Heritage Sites in

universities and professional trainings along the lines associated with the protection of cultural

and natural heritage.

In conclusion, the conservationist community, including the conservationists of the

countries represented at the present Seminar will hopefully be able to respond to the challenges,

associated with continuing urbanization, which is often haphazard due to poor manageability and

dangerous to the preservation of cultural heritage, including the World Heritage Sites. Shall we

be patient to the proceeding change, shall we be able to manage it without detriment to the

preservation of our cultural and natural heritage is the important question facing us!




37

References

1. World Report on the URBAN Future 21. Prepared by the World Commission URBAN 21.

Berlin, 2000.

2. Sokhranenie i ispolzovanie istoriko-kulturnogo naslediya na regionalnom urovne, v tom chisle

i pri razrabotke skhem territorialnogo planirovaniya. Svodny Otchet. TsNIIP

gradostroitelstva. Moscow, 2010 (in Russian)

3. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO

World Heritage Centre. WHC. 05/2. 1 February 2005.

4. Special Expert Meeting of the World Heritage Convention: The concept of outstanding

universal value. ICOMOS Background Paper. Kazan, 2005.

5. Vienna Memorandum on ―World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture – Managing the

Historic Urban Landscape‖. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Vienna, 20 May 2005.

6. The Historic City as a Reference Model for Sustainable Urban Development Policies // Malta

CIVVIH Position Paper. Valletta, Malta, 2010.

7. Krogius V.R. Goroda Vsemirnogo naslediya kak poligony izucheniya mezhdunarodnogo

opyta sokhraneniya i ustoichivogo razvitiya istoricheskikh gorodov. Okhrana kulturnogo

naslediya: Materialy ICOMOS. Vypusk 2, Moscow, 2009, pp. 16-29 (in Russian)




38

Cultural Landscapes in the World Heritage List and in Russia

Marina Kuleshova Cultural Landscape Management Department, Heritage Institute, Russia

The World Heritage List grows rapidly and is supplemented with the new nominations.

At the same time the requirements to quality of these nominations increase, that is reflected in

the permanently updated Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage

Convention. A category of «cultural landscape» emerged in this document in 1992. It has been

proposed as a specific group in cultural heritage, with own characteristics, and the most crucial is

an evidence of the combined work of nature and culture, resulting in the recognized historical

identity and spatial integrity of the site.

The lists of cultural landscapes are being permanently updated and published on a

website of the World Heritage Center. The objects registered in such lists are officially

recognized cultural landscapes. However, the analysis of the World Heritage List shows a lot of

nominations with specific features of cultural landscapes, but enlisted beyond this category. It is

clear that until 1992 the nominated cultural landscape sites could not been formally designated,

and after 1992 not all countries considered it necessary to propose their nominations in this

specific category. Therefore, there are some hidden or latent objects in the World Heritage List

along with officially recognized cultural landscapes. It is excellently shown in Peter Fowler‘s

review (2003), who had discovered more than 100 cultural landscapes nominated before 2002,

and 30 of them were officially designated by that period. Let's take into consideration, that

official list contained only 66 cultural landscapes in 2008. The same list of 66 sites is reproduced

in the Manual No 26 published in the proceeding of the UNESCO World Heritage Center in

2009. The manual presents cases on identification, conservation and management of the cultural

landscapes attributed to the World Heritage. But these cases refer to both 66 listed objects, and

the other nominations that are not registered in the official lists of cultural landscapes (the

frontiers of the Roman Empire, Lapland in Sweden, the Solovetski Complex in Russia, Rideau

Canal in Canada, Machu Picchu in Peru, etc.).

Our analytical research reveals that among 704 objects of the World Cultural Heritage

existing in early 2011, around one forth part may be attributed as the cultural landscapes

according to requirements of the Operational Guidelines, another quarter – to the urban

landscapes. By current rules of UNESCO city sites cannot be referred as cultural landscapes.

However, at the end of 2011 a special issue is already included into the agenda of the General

Conference of UNESCO, in relation to approval of Recommendations on historical urban

landscapes and implementation of the landscape approach for the solution of the urban heritage

conservation problems. Among 27 combined natural and cultural objects of the World Heritage

the overwhelming majority may be referred to cultural landscapes. Among 180 objects of the

World Natural Heritage about 10 percent can be ranked as cultural landscapes, for example, the

Great Barrier Reef in Australia or El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve in Mexico.

A question arises - why for it was necessary to check the World Heritage List in a search

for cultural landscapes? What is the difference - are there 66 or 366 of them? In our opinion,

cultural landscape represents a specific type of the phenomenon and recognition of one or

another heritage site as a cultural landscape entails very important consequences.

First, combined work of man with the nature presumes the need to take into consideration

some factors of impact upon natural objects and biodiversity. In many cases natural objects have

the exclusive cultural status, in particular the sacred sites – for example, Sacred Lake Baikal




39

(Russia), Osun-Osogbo Sacred Grove (Nigeria), Sacred Mountain of Sulaiman-Too

(Kyrghyzstan), etc.

Secondly, the living cultural landscape does exist due to traditional economic activities –

agriculture, forestry, trade, housing construction etc. These are numerous wine producing

(vineyard) landscapes of Europe, some pastoral landscapes, landscapes of nomadic and

aboriginal cultures. For example, cultural landscape of the Curonian Spit has developed due to

afforestation at the moving dune sands and fishing activities where local population was

engaged. The Russian party plans to establish here a special tourism and recreation zone that

might destroy the historic texture of a cultural landscape.

Thirdly, the cultural landscape consists not only of material objects: it includes intangible

heritage as well. Hence, the concept of a cultural landscape provides close interoperability of two

international conventions – the World Heritage Convention (1972) and the Convention for the

Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). It‘s not incidentally that a lot of objects

in both the List of the World Cultural Heritage and the

List of Masterpieces of Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity coincide – the Rice Terraces

of the Philippines Cordilleras ( Philippines) and the Hudhud Chants of the Ifugao (IH); the

Traditions and practices associated to the Kayas in the sacred forests of the Mijikenda and the

fortified villages and the Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests (Kenya); ―Following the Cross‖

Procession on the island of Hvar (Croatia) and the Stari Grad Plain on the Adriatic island of Hvar

(Croatia).

Fourthly, all components are important in the cultural landscape, in addition to the unique

buildings and monuments. In the UNESCO Manual the latter is emphasized: recognition of the

outstanding value of the certain cultural landscapes in spite of the presence of outstanding

monuments sanctioned to safeguard cultural assets of many peoples and countries.

Repetition of a certain type of the heritage objects in various countries adequately reflects

national cultural character and a way of self-identification. This way, in the Great Britain a

number of sites, referred as cultural landscapes, are the factory settlements of the industrial

revolution period with the industrial landscape, for example, New Lanark textile settlement

established by Robert Owen. The polders and various water-regulating systems are characteristic

for the Netherlands. Sacred mountains are one of the main topics in China. In Greece these are

archeology and sacred sites, in Morocco – the Medinas of the cities. First national parks were

nominated by the USA, and this fact shall be considered as a certain cultural declaration, as this

country has recognized own natural heritage via these phenomena.

What type of heritage sites is specific for Russia?

Russia has well balanced List of objects incorporating 9 natural and 15 cultural sites.

Among the latter is the Curonian Spit jointly presented by Russia and Lithuania, with the official

status of a cultural landscape. The parity of natural and cultural nominations in the World

Heritage List is kept at a proportion 1:4 for many years already. At the same time, Russia is one

of the leaders on a number of natural nominations (after Australia - 15, China – 12, the USA –

12, Brazil – 7, and on a par with Canada – 9 sites). Abundance and diversity of nature is one of

the basic characteristics of the historic and cultural space in Russia. Some Russian researchers, in

particular Prof. Boris Rodoman, pledge that the principal cultural mission of Russia in the

globalizing world is the conservation of nature.

Meanwhile, architectural ensembles and monuments prevail among the World Cultural

Heritage in Russia today, and more than half of them are the urban sites. These are masterpieces

of architecture, creativity centers and important historical markers corresponding to the criteria i,

ii, iv. In the Tentative list of the Russian objects there are 10 natural and 16 cultural phenomena.

One of the objects, the Valamo Island, is considered as a mixed natural and cultural site (this is




40

hardly feasible because of extensive construction activity of a local monastery as well as

reticence of such religious institutions).

Another site - an ancient Russian city of Pskov with the outskirts, is presented as a

cultural landscape. Another three are archeological objects - the ancient city of Tanais

Bosporian Kingdom, petrogliphs of Sikhote-Alin and ancient Bulgar settlement.

So, what should be added to the Russian tentative list to demonstrate the cultural assets of

Russia more adequately and representatively, so that v-criterion on traditional phenomena would

appear in the value criteria more frequently?

In the historical aspect Russia has been and still remains the Orthodox country for many

observers. Therefore it is clear, why the church architecture is represented so widely in its

heritage (Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye, the Kizhi Pogost, various Kremlin and city

churches) and monastic complexes (Solovki, the Ferapontov monastery, the Trinity Sergius

Lavra in Sergiev Posad, the Novodevichy Convent). It happens that monastic complexes are not

limited to the monastery walls, they extend to adjacent territories and transform them to a

specific monastic landscape. The best examples are Mount Athos in Greece and Solovki in

Russia. In the mean time, Solovetsky monastery landscape is not presented in the World

Heritage, only the cultural-historical ensemble of a monastery has been inscribed to the List.

Let's remind, that Mount Athos is registered in the List as natural and cultural object; it covers

350 sq. km (Solovki Archipelago is 295 sq. km without marine area), embraces 20 monasteries

and 12 small secluded monasteries (there are 9 smaller secluded monasteries and hermitages in

Solovki), represents outstanding value by 6 criteria (only one iv-criterion is applied to Solovki).

The expert evaluation report by the international mission on Solovetsky Archipelago in 1998

recognized the Solovetsky Islands as the cultural landscape, and the subsequent research of the

Heritage Institute confirmed this nomination by 8 value criteria (i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, x)3.

3 i – presents masterpiece of combined work of man and of nature, including numerous cultural values

and natural virtue in their relationship; unique combination of man-made, evolving and associative types

of cultural landscape;

ii – the largest center of Orthodox monastic culture, which has influenced the formation of the cultural

space of the Russian North, having been a center of innovations;

iii – impressive illustration of relic pre-Christian cultures, which is unique in wide spectrum and variety

of forms; sacred landscape noted by numerous masonries, capes, labyrinths, etc.;

iv – an outstanding historic palimpsest, which has testified the history of Russia (the farthest Orthodoxy

outpost in the North since 15th century; Russian military fortress in the 16

th century; a site of Nikon‘s

antagonists revolt and its cruel suppression in the18th century; concentration labour camp in the 20

th

century);

v – an outstanding example of historic monastic land use representing all the traditions of the Orthodox

monastic culture, which has become vulnerable and relic under the irreversible processes of civilization

development. The cultural landscape has a typical structure: monasteries, chapels, crosses, sacred wells,

sacred sites. The hydrological regime is re-formed by a network of channels forming laborious lake-canal

network; marsh ecosystems are partially drained to become meadows;

vi – highly informative associative landscape supported by legends, sacred sites, related with historical

persons (Phillip Kolychev, Peter the Great, patriarch Nikon, Pavel Florensky, Dmitry Likhachev, etc.),

Russian Golgotha of the 20th century, an outstanding example of toponym transfer from the Holy Land to

the Solovetsky Islands (Golgotha mountain, Favor mountain, Eleon Mountain, cape of Edem);

vii – landscape of outstanding aesthetic value with panoramic and colorful landscapes, contrasts of

tundra, a mosaic of woods, lakes and bogs, incessant change of colors of the sea with silhouettes of the

adjacent islands, effects of the white nights and the polar lights;

x – key habitats of rare biota types: moult stations of eider (Somateria mollissima), key reproduction

station of the White Sea population of the white whale, site of mass waterfowl stops during seasonal

migrations, seasonal accumulation of seals etc.




41

Russia was commonly considered to be a rural country, and rural culture has determined

its characteristic landscapes, but in modern Russia this culture becomes a relict. Traditional rural

culture is the obvious heritage of the country, yet it is neither presented in the Russia‘s World

Heritage List, nor in the tentative list. Kenozero, Pinega and Mezen regions of the Russian North

still keep enclaves of the relic rural and coast-dwelling cultures and the rich traditions of wooden

architecture. The cultural landscape of these lands and seas includes natural ecosystems as well –

pastures, hunting lands, fishing areas. Kenozero has good prospects for protection – it is the

Kenozersky National Park. The Heritage Institute has reviewed the outstanding universal value

of this cultural landscape according to the following criteria – ii, iii, v4. The management-plan

for the Kenozersky National Park has been developed in the partnership with the leading experts

of the Institute.

Another feature of the Russian landscape, in particular in the central part of Russia, is the

relicts of landowner country estate culture. Little is left from those land estates so numerous in

the beginning of the 20th

century. The reason is that the landowner class has been exterminated

or exiled. However their connections with the Russian language and literature, art, music and

poetry have favored the transformation of a whole system of such manors into museums (since

1960th

– into memorial estates). The most well known today are the following sites:

Yasnaya Polyana estate by Leo Tolstoy, Mikhailovskoye estate by Alexander Pushkin,

Spasskoye-Lutovinovo estate by Ivan Turgenev, Shakhmatovo estate by Alexander Blok,

Karabikha estate by Nikolay Nekrasov, Khmelita estate by Alexander Griboedov, Tarkhany

estate by Yury Lermontov. All of them form the historic country landscape and are inseparably

linked with it. Being an integral part of the Russian culture and a characteristic of the Russian

landscape, Russian estate should be presented in the World Heritage List.

Leo Tolstoy‘s estate in Yasnaya Polyana meets the criteria of outstanding universal value,

authenticity and integrity. It possess the powerful combination of landscape characteristics:

1) representativeness in relation to attributes of estate‘s structure and economy;

2) memorial due to inseparable relationship between the life and works of a man who had an

impact on the global world and culture; 3) authentic landscape created by Tolstoy in combined

work with nature that serves as living illustration to his literary works. Only few people pay

attention to another historical feature of this landscape. Leo Tolstoy has partially transferred the

spacious arable lands of his estate into the planted forests for implementation of his own project

of afforestation at the border zone of the wood and steppe. Thus he has added to the landscape

mosaics and elevated biodiversity level. The landscape of Yasnaya Polyana can be presented in

the World Heritage List according to 4 criteria: ii, iii, v, vi5.

4 ii – one of the key relic centers of the Russian oral epic testimony, that has enriched the world body of

folklore and demonstrates a genetic relationship with the legends of the Kiev Russia;

iii – archaic peasant cultural landscape, outstanding due to its structure and preservation; site of living

relic peasant culture with its unique elements and character;

v – an outstanding example of traditional land use and hunting, fishing and agricultural economies of the

rural communities in the Russian North, preserved since the 16th century that has become vulnerable or

extinct under the globalization impact. 5 ii – a site where the principal works of the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy have been created and his ideas

have been disseminated to affect the Russian society and the mankind; one of the initial centers of the

Russian humanism;

iii – unique evidence of extinct culture of the country estate landowner (disappeared in the beginning of

the 20th century), outstanding in its preservation level and authenticity and giving an adequate concept

about life of the former nobility;




42

Ethnic diversity of the Russian landscape is the essential feature of Russian cultural

space. Each nation possess own cultural values, that become visible in the landscape. Cultural

lifestyle and economic structure of small numbered indigenous peoples of the North and old

settler (mostly Old Believer) groups are under threat due to climate change and current policy of

the resource extraction. Their cultural landscapes are pastures, hunting and other traditional land

use areas, sacred areas and seasonal migration routes adapted to the extreme living conditions

through sustainable management traditions. Monuments of material culture are replaced here by

the sacralized nature and profound knowledge about nature. The examples include Mount of

Munku-Sardyk, Lake Baikal and Lake Hubsugul for the indigenous Sojot, Buryat and Mongol

peoples (at present Baikal Lake and Ubsunur are considered to be exceptionally natural

heritage), Vajgach Island and Bely Island for the indigenous Nenets people, the eastern point of

Chukotka and Ratmanov Island for Eskimos. The landscapes associated with the Pomor culture

are of particular interest in the Russian North. The village of Kimzha can serve as a promising

site of Pomor heritage.

The historic residences of the relic Cossack communities at the frontiers of the Russian

Empire also represent a unique phenomenon.

One of such sites is a unique literary and memorial landscape - it is Tikhyi Don. ―Tikhyi

Don‖ is the Russian title of Mikhail Sholokhov‘s novel ―The Quiet Don‖, the Nobel Prize

winner. The main area where the novel action takes place are the Cossack villages at the middle

course of the Don river. At present they are inhabited by the descendants of the vivid personages

by Sholokhov who have preserved their traditions, habits and lifestyle. In the novel much

attention is paid to the local landscape features; all the places of action are recognizable. In this

way novel is simultaneously a masterpiece and a documentary report, a data bank of exceptional

ethno-cultural landscape and specific cultural space. Based on the literary and associative value

of the site the memorial estate has been established here. This fact has influenced the

development of the entire district; it has given a new impulse of progress and has contributed to

the conservation of ethno-cultural identity of the Cossack community. On request from the

museum reserve the Heritage Institute has executed a special inquiry on the heritage evaluation:

an outstanding universal value of this landscape and site has been assessed according to the

selection criteria – ii, iv, v, vi, vii6.

v – outstanding relic sample of the organization of the country estate landscape in the environment of

traditional country land use, characteristic for the Russian culture of the end of the 19th century and the

beginning of the 20th century;

vi – Leo Tolstoy‘s associative literary landscape. 6 iv – cultural landscape of the middle Don river, one of the main sites of compact Cossacks settlement

representing the frontier culture, which has greatly influenced the history of Russia during the

establishment of its borders in the 19th century, as well as the formation of geopolitical and cultural space

of the Eastern Europe;

v – outstanding examples of the traditional types of settlements, as well as of everyday life and economy

organization, nature management and cultural identity of the Don Cossacks, folklore and preserved

traditions;

vi – exceptional example of a literary landscape and the site of creative work of Mikhail Sholokhov (the

author of the Tikhy Don novel and the Nobel Prize winner, who has opened the Cossack culture to the

world and wrote about their tragedy in the 20th century). The nature description, history, ethnography,

geography of the novel are reliable and well-recognized in the surrounding country;

vii – the most beautiful landscapes of the Southern Russia with abundance of rare flowers in steppe and

abrupt chalky banks of the Don river valley, which is the semantic dominant of the land, with a mosaic of

meadows, woods, arable fields and the Cossack villages.




43

Let us consider another type of the cultural landscape that is still absent in the World

Heritage List: military and historic landscapes, battlefields and war monuments. Nomination of

such objects to the List is not welcomed, as they are certificates of military aggression, and this

property is not encouraged. But the times change and people start to look at the same objects and

circumstances from another point of view. Memorials have arisen in places where aggression

had been displayed and people had perished. The concentration camps in Poland are among such

sites in the World Heritage List (Auschwitz-Birkenau, or Oswentzim). At the places where

aggression has been manifested, people fought for their freedom and such places became

symbols of struggle for liberation, for example, the ancient fortress Masada in Israel, the World

Heritage Object. Finally, in 2010 the list was augmented with another new object – Bikini Atoll

in the Marshall Islands, where 67 nuclear explosions had been carried out (criterion iv, vi); now

it symbolizes the termination of the nuclear arms race.

The Borodino battlefield in Russia is an example of such a symbolic site. It‘s a place of

the battle of two great armies, the army of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Russian army under the

commander Mikhail Kutuzoff. The 200th anniversary of this event will be marked in 2012. This

site can be considered as a memorial of military events that shall never occur again.

Additionally, Borodino battlefield is a monumental illustration to the great novel of ―War and

Peace‖ by Leo Tolstoy. He stated a very impressive anti-military ideology via his novel

personages and these ideas are associated exactly with the battlefield. In 2009 the Borodino

Museum-Reserve was honored with the Melina Mercouri International Prize for the

Safeguarding and Management of Cultural Landscapes, being just the only winner from Russia

to the present date. The Borodino field has the sound ground to be presented in the World

Heritage according to the following criteria: iv, vi.7

So, Russia has a rich potential of assets according to the criteria of outstanding

universal value of the world heritage. In a number of requirements to applicants for inclusion

into the World Heritage List there are listed the guarantees of site protection. In Russia such

guarantees are provided by the status of strictly protected natural territory or the status of

museum reserve. One national park and four memorial estates have been presented in the

aforementioned analysis. An additional requirement is set for the cultural landscapes as a part of

the World Heritage. They have to be managed with proper consideration of the local

communities‘ interests and needs. Consequently, guarantee of protection should be proved by

appropriate decision-making and governance at a local level. This problem at the Russian

heritage sites has not been solved yet. However, if we wish to expand representation of Russia in

the WHList through the cultural landscape nominations it is necessary to find appropriate

solutions.

Development of the management plans for the Russian sites in the World Cultural

Heritage emerged as an unexpected failure. It is necessary to mention that for the Russian natural

sites, the national parks and reserves, the practice of development and implementation of such

plan was introduced in early 20th

century with participation of the Biodiversity Conservation

Center, Russian Office of WWF and the Department of Foreign Aid of the United Kingdom.

7 iv – site of the battle, resulted in the great historical events not only in Russia, but in the European

continent as a whole, and has greatly changed the European political map in the early 19th century.

vi – outstanding landscape memorial with a lot of monuments to commemorate the victims of two great

wars (the Patriotic War of 1812 in Russia and the Great Patriotic War as a part of the World War II). A

monument to the warriors of the great Napoleon‘s army is one of the Borodino obelisks. All the

monuments were erected in memory of the killed in the Spaso-Borodinsky monastery, the first state

military-historical museum in Russia. This place is the key site in the action of Leo Tolstoy‘s ―War and

Peace‖ novel.




44

Scientific employees of the Heritage Institute were involved in this activity along with the

British colleagues who insisted on regular meetings with the local communities and authorities to

be organized in the model natural sites. The problems of future development for these territories

were discussed during these meetings while partners were learning to communicate and build

relationships with the other stakeholders. Unfortunately, museum reserves had no chance to

participate in such practice because they are under supervision by another sector (Ministry of

Culture) and now it not easy for them to fulfill the requirements of the World Heritage

Committee on management plan development and implementation.

Global challenges discussed nowadays include uncontrolled urbanization on extensive

territories. These processes have already damaged and continue to threaten unique cultural

landscapes. First of all, these are the townscapes (St.-Petersburg is a good example), as well as

territories with health spa and recreational activity, such as the Western Caucasus and the

Curonian Spit, Baikal and Solovki. For example, the tentative projects on construction of wind

power installations is being discussed for Solovki, as well as the projects of cottage construction,

hotel complexes, tourist and recreational infrastructure development, construction of new

moorings and reconstruction of historical ones, etc. These projects are partially implemented.

Current legislation, status of museum reserve and the functioning monastery are not able to

effectively protect Solovki. The local population has no deep roots here or self-identity with the

heritage of this place. Restoration works on monasteries, hermitages and the monastery ensemble

evoke serious inquiries of the professional experts. Solovki is a site that is difficult to manage; in

1998 an international expert group recommended to transfer the heritage of Solovki to the ―under

threat‖ category and this was quite reasonable. Solovki does need international assistance and

monitoring, otherwise the archipelago will lose its universal value and could convert into

common investment area with new buildings, airports, trade centers, recreation and service areas.

Legislation does not always safeguard Russian heritage objects, if they are not protected

by the common public. There are examples of legal amendments to remove obstacles in

realization of specific construction initiatives, in particular the case ―On specially protected

natural territories‖ Federal Law that was ―corrected‖ to ensure construction of the Olympic

infrastructure in the Sochi national park (the Western Caucasus). But the reason is not a mere

current legal enforcement, urbanization or tourism pressures. The matter is that since economic

and legal conditions for accumulation of capital have been established in Russia, the capital is to

be invested into certain projects, and certainly it escapes the remote areas, but concentrates in the

very centers of various resources availability. And the World Heritage sites are very attractive

for these investment projects. The economic process cannot be stopped just by goodwill, in

particular under the still aggravating corruption. Lack of awareness and cultural education of

capital owners and authorities does not favor projects of heritage preservation. Present policy in

Russia has primary economic incentives; the economy is supported by big business, and business

is oriented at high profits. Contemporary business ignores social values; consequently the

economy ignores laws of social development, and the government disregards public opinion.

This is another global challenge.

The civil society is still only emerging in Russia, it is not always capable to protect its

values, in particular values of heritage and cultural landscape. However, it has already

demonstrated its capacity to defend assets of the World Heritage sites. Until present these

demonstrations are of incidental character and reflect sectoral governance, being divided into

cultural and ecological movements. So opposition to construction of a tower by Gazprom in

St-Petersburg was of culturological orientation and counteraction to construction of the Olympic

objects in the Western Caucasus has an ecological orientation and is led by non-governmental

organization of Ecological Watch on the North Caucasus (EWNC). The concept of a cultural

landscape enforce these movements with additional arguments, as Petersburg is a gorgeous city




45

not only thanks to the architectural ensembles, but it implies an outstanding urban landscape as

well; it has its own cultural space and own ecological framework. Consequently, area of new

Olympic constructions incorporates not only the Red Book species, crucial biocoenoses and

vulnerable ecosystems, but also rich cultural history, imprinted in the landscape. The cultural

landscapes in the World Heritage List are both an important component, and vital socio-cultural

paradigm capable to resist global challenges of the modern times.

Bibliography

Cultural landscape as an object of heritage. Edited by Yu.A.Vedenin, M.E.Kuleshova. M.-SPb.,

2004. – 620 pp. // www.heritage-institute.ru

Report on carrying out of monitoring of the World Heritage object ―Solovetski historical and

cultural complex‖ // The Newsletter ―Ecology of culture‖, № 4 (17). Arkhangelsk, 2000.

The World Heritage List. Translated by R.Krogius, N.Maksakovsky // Heritage Institute //

www.heritage-institute.ru

Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO.

1972.//UNESCO World Heritage Center // www.whc.unesco.org

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO. 2003.

//UNESCO World Heritage Center // www.whc.unesco.org

Fowler P. J. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992-2002 // World Heritage Papers 6.

UNESCO World Heritage Center, 2003. – 140 p.

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO.

WHC. 08/01 – 163 p. // UNESCO World Heritage Center //www.whc.unesco.org

The Intangible Heritage List // UNESCO Culture Sector – Intangible Heritage //

http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/

World Heritage Cultural landscapes: А Handbook for Conservation and Management (Nora

Mitchell, Mechtild Rossler, Pierre-Marie Tricaud) // World Heritage Papers 26. 2009. – 135 p.


Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO.

1972.//UNESCO World Heritage Center // www.whc.unesco.org

Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO. 2003.


Fowler P. J. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992-2002 // World Heritage Papers 6.

UNESCO World Heritage Center, 2003. – 140 p.

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO.

WHC. 08/01 – 163 p. // UNESCO World Heritage Center // www.whc.unesco.org

The Intangible Heritage List // UNESCO Culture Sector – Intangible Heritage //


World Heritage Cultural landscapes: А Handbook for Conservation and Management (Nora

Mitchell, Mechtild Rossler, Pierre-Marie Tricaud).// World Heritage Papers 26. 2009. – 135 p.




http://www.whc.unesco.org/












46

Global Transformations of Rural Cultural Landscapes –

Main Drivers and Management Challenges

Jørgen Primdahl University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Simon Swaffield Lincoln University, New Zealand

Introduction

The speeding up of social relations within institutional and organizational networks that

extend across large distances, and with no – or almost no - time lags in executing decisions, are

common characteristics in the literature of ‗globalisation‘ (Giddens 1990, Castells 2000). Local

activities become increasingly interlinked through more or less globalised networks and through

the same driving forces. Extent, intensity, velocity and impacts of the change processes seem to

be expanding (Held. et al. 1999) and policy regimes at all levels are challenged. Cultural

landscapes are profoundly affected by these dynamics, as they are shaped by driving forces

associated with globalised markets, technology and mobility as much as by local and historical

values and practices.

Based partly on recent works on globalisation and agricultural landscapes (Primdahl and

Swaffield 2010a) we present an overview of current change patterns and public policy challenges

associated with rural cultural landscapes. We particularly emphasise strategic policy choices,

including discussion of the relative merits of area designation of protected cultural landscapes as

a strategy compared to a more integrated approach.

First we briefly summarise an overarching framework of analysis that recognises two

global policy agendas that profoundly affect rural cultural landscapes - the market and

sustainability agendas - and the different levels of policy and decision making through which the

agendas are promoted. Then we analyse in more detail the main socio economic dynamics that

affect local and regional change in rural cultural landscapes. We identify several distinctive

policy domains by which the market and sustainability agendas are applied to these changing

landscapes and finally consider the different spatial approaches that are used to implement

cultural landscape policies within these domains.

Two global policy agendas and their influence on rural landscapes

Public policy concerning rural landscapes is not new. In fact, regulation of owner and

user rights and duties in respect to rural landscapes belongs to the oldest part of legislation in

many countries (Peil and Jones 2005). Today, a growing number of international and national

policies deal with various aspect of landscape functions and patterns. We find it useful to

distinguish between two different global policy agendas of particular relevance to rural

landscapes (see Fig. 1) (Dwyer and Hodge 2001, Primdahl and Swaffield 2010b).

The first is an open market agenda aiming at market liberalisations. This agenda, to

which sectoral agricultural policies belong, is a key driver of globalisation. The World Trade

Organisation (WTO) is the central international institution, and international, corporate and

national institutions are the key policy makers. Very few policy decisions are taken at regional

and local levels in this agenda. One implication of this is that it is difficult – if not impossible –

to include concerns for local rural landscapes directly into market related policies. An example

of this problem was the ‗set-aside‘ scheme which in the EU was an integral part of the CAP from




47

1992 until 2008. The main purpose of the scheme was to avoid or reduce surplus production

within EU, and the set-aside requirements were adjusted every year. As a consequence, farmers

would be required to set aside 15 percent of their crop land (over 17ha) covered by subsidies one

year, 8 percent the following year, then 12 percent etc. In effect the scheme meant that field

boundaries were changed throughout the continent every year, with obvious landscape impact,

which was not even considered when the scheme was introduced in 1992. The relationship

between market based regimes and cultural landscape values is discussed further in the final

section.

The second agenda deals with the promotion of sustainable development, and is related to

issues such as land use, water protection, soil conservation, nature and heritage conservation,

urban development and rural landscapes. The origins for the conservation dimensions of the

sustainability agenda can be traced back through a number of national and then international

programmes for nature and heritage conservation, including early national parks, and UNESCO

initiatives such as the World Heritage Convention (1972) and the Man and the Biosphere

programmes, as well as complementary programmes by organisations such as the IUCN (1994).

One of the major mile stones in the sustainability agenda was the publication ―Our Common

Future‖, the so-called Brundtland Report, which argued for the need to integrate social and

environmental concerns into economic policy (World Commission on Environment and

Development 1987). Thus, the contemporary sustainability agenda can be seen as a response to a

one dimensional and unsustainable market policy agenda.

Since 1980s the sustainability agenda has become highly influential upon environmental

policy in a broad sense, with a fast growing body of environmental experts worldwide, occupied

both within and outside political administrative bodies (O‘Riordan 1998). Under this agenda,

policies and plans are designed and implemented at all political-administrative levels. Hence

whilst the United Nations and its various programmes for sustainable development have become

important institutions at a global level, a key feature of the sustainability agenda and a point that

differentiates it from the market agenda is the role of local and regional physical planning and

environmental policies, as well as other local institutions and initiatives.

Fig. 1. Two policy agendas of particular relevance to rural landscapes. (From Primdahl and

Swaffield 2010b, p. 10, with inspiration from Dwyer and Hodge 2001).




48

The market and sustainability agendas meet in the local rural cultural landscapes in

different forms and with different consequences. Some of the high level decisions on trade and

trade conditions have immediate impacts on global food prices, and through this on farmers

decisions worldwide (for example decisions to introduce elements of carbon markets and

accounting). Others have more long term consequences (eg food market expansion and increased

competitions among farmers). In many cases (including the two examples mentioned) policy

decisions taken at the local levels within the sustainability agenda can only partially cope with

the consequences of market policies.

Change factors in rural cultural landscapes: agricultural developments and urbanisation

Most rural landscapes are ‗agri-cultural‘ landscapes, in which productive farming

activities represent a significant landscape function. However there are usually also a number of

other socio economic functions present in the landscape, such as forestry, residential housing (of

various densities and types), recreation and tourism. Rural landscapes embody a range of cultural

practices associated with these functions, as well as cultural features from previous periods such

as historical farm buildings and villages, old field and hedgerow systems, water systems, mills,

churches and other religious sites. These landscapes also often contain habitats of importance to

biodiversity which may be remnants of natural ecosystems, or, more typically in developed

countries, have been created through a variety of human cultural practices that shape natural

systems, such as semi-natural grasslands, silvo-pastural systems, and woodlands. The combined

socio-cultural and biophysical systems are frequently rich in a range of cultural and natural

heritage values (Stanner and Bourdeau 1995, Pedroli et al. 2007). However the political

economies and practices that created these mosaics of functions, features and values are

increasingly under stress. Two dynamics that are integrally linked to globalisation are of

particular importance in rural landscapes: Structural transformation of agriculture and

urbanisation.

First, transformations and transitions in agricultural structures and functions affect rural

landscapes everywhere. The market agenda means that national economies are increasingly

linked through global and bilateral trade agreements, and in some regions the very basis of the

political economy has been changing, sometimes dramatically. Markets for food, fibre and bio-

energy are expanding and changing as national and supra national agricultural policies such as

the EU Common Agricultural Policy become increasingly part of a global trading system. The

primary goal of the market agenda is to make agricultural production more competitive, and this

has different consequences in different landscapes (Morgan et al. 2007). Since World War II

production has been intensified in many regions, including most of Europe. There are several

components to this including technological innovations, socio-economic restructurings and

transformations of ownership and agricultural production, and reorganisation of food supply

chains and networks.

The use of more chemical inputs, new crop varieties (including GMOs), mechanisation of

field and stable work; new management systems that enable increases in livestock production per

unit, and expansion of the irrigated area and area under plastic and glass are some of the

technological innovations that have enabled agricultural production to increase dramatically.

This requires capital investment, which in turn has frequently been associated with changes of

agricultural tenure, ownership structures and organisation, with a concentration of production on

fewer and larger units and more corporate governance. These changes in the primary agricultural

structure are in turn intimately linked to changing distribution and processing systems, with the

development of large food networks that connect producers through industrial processing plants




49

to international food distributors and retail chains in industrialised countries (Watts and

Goodman 1997).

The landscape impacts of the change processes intensification have been immense

(Tilman et al 2002). Fields have been amalgamated and linear elements such as hedgerows and

stonewalls have been removed, ponds filled up, wetlands drained, water courses channeled, and

water resources and wildlife affected by chemical sprays and fertilizer. In other landscapes with

marginal conditions for agricultural production farming has been abandoned or extensified. In

these areas valuable semi-natural grasslands have been overgrown by shrubs and woodlands,

maintenance of terraces, stonewalls and farm buildings has ceased and people have moved out.

The abandoned landscape can change dramatically in character, and often erosion, loss of

biodiversity and increase in wild fires follow such marginalisation of agriculture. In other

settings however, agricultural marginalisation can have positive biodiversity benefits, as a

greater variety of species re-colonise land previously used for monoculture.

Parallel and to some extent interlinked with these changes in agriculture, different types

of urbanisation also influence rural landscapes (Primdahl et al. 2010). Traditionally, urbanisation

is the process of migration of people from rural, often remote regions into towns and cities. This

has been a continuing process throughout human history and now has global reach. During the

20th

century the global urban population had a 13-fold increase compared with the four-fold

increase for the entire global population, and in 2007 more than half of the people in the world

were living in cities for the first time in human history. This process is continuing on a global

scale, although faster in developing countries than in developed (Zlotnik, 2004). For some

landscapes, the disappearance of economic activities related to fishery, forestry and agriculture

has resulted in a hollowing out of the social and community structures previously associated with

rural landscapes, creating an increasingly impoverished and empty land.

However counter-urbanisation is also a worldwide phenomenon. This is the movement of

people from cities into rural areas, and can also be seen as form of urbanisation, in this case

understood as a socio-economic urbanisation of rural landscapes, when people with urban

incomes (or pensions developed from urban incomes) move into the rural landscape and manage

their land more as a living place than as a production place. Counter urbanization occurs mostly

within the rural fringe of urbanised regions, but is also evident in more remote regions, often in

highly attractive landscapes. In great parts of the Alp-regions in Southern Germany and Austria

for example there has been significant population growth between 1990 and 2000 due mainly to

counter-urbanization (EEA 2006 p.15) In landscapes where counter urbanisation is occurring

commercial farming may already be under pressure, and its decline can be accelerated by rising

land lifestyle prices and issues of reverse sensitivity (urban incomers objecting to rural

production systems). This is the case in the rural part of the Copenhagen region, for example,

where full time farmers have decreased in numbers, and their share of agricultural land has

dropped to less than 10 percent, while hobby farmers with incomes outside the farm have grown

proportionally (Busck et al. 2006). Counter urbanisation may also affect rural landscape cultures

by increasing demands for high quality food local food, stimulating organic agriculture, local

manufacturing of food, local farmer‘s markets etc, and through the growing recognition of and

demand for cultural landscape heritage features and values.

The landscape consequences of these counter urbanisation processes include – at least in

recent decades- an extensification of production expressed as a reduction in land in rotation,

increases in grass lands and woodland, and an increase in recreational activities and a growth in

non-agricultural businesses associated with incomers. Over time, these landscapes become more

and more urbanised in a socio economic and cultural sense, even if they appear to be reverting to

a more wooded, pre agricultural habitat. The long term consequences of counter-urbanisation are




50

more uncertain. In great parts of the North Eastern US agriculture had largely disappeared by the

beginning of the 1960s, due to a combination of counter-urbanisation and poor conditions for

farming, with the result that the landscapes have transformed into forest landscapes inhabited by

urban commuters and retirees (Gottman 1961). Similar patterns can be seen in some parts of SE

England (Bohnet et al 2003). However it remains to be seen what the long term trends will be for

many parts of Europe and other densely populated part of the world where urban centres adjoin

better quality land which retains production capacity. It is in these regions with good conditions

for agriculture – fertile, well drained soils and no difficult terrain conditions - that agriculture is

competitive globally, and it is in these regions we find high levels of investment in more or less

industrialised agriculture. It is however often also in these regions that major cities and urbanised

regions are located- because it was agriculture which historically provided the background to the

urban economy- and so urbanisation pressures are most intense as well. In many developed

countries the more marginal areas for agriculture are often also relatively attractive mosaic

landscapes, due to their historical legacy, to which some segments of the urban population wish

to move. At the same time it is especially from the marginal and remote agricultural landscapes

that people migrate to the city.

In summary, rural landscapes are affected by a combination of structural transformation

of agriculture and urbanisation. Whereas the effects of both agricultural structural developments

and urbanisation have each been well researched in many countries, their combined effects have

received less attention, yet deserve and require investigation (Primdahl et al. 2010). Figure 2

outlines these combinations.

Fig. 2. Two main change factors of agricultural landscapes – agriculture and urbanization,

including counter urbanisation and the general influence of ‗urban‘ investments and ‗urban‘

values. (Modified from Primdahl and Swaffield 2010b).

Poor conditions for

agriculture

High levels of

‗urbanisation‘

1. Intensive production

landscape dominated by

agricultural production

2. Mosaics of production and

hobby farms, housing and

businesses

3. Mosaics of pasture land

and hobby farms, housing and

businesses

4. Extensive production

landscape dominated by

grasslands and natural

habitats

Low levels of

‗urbanisation‘

Good conditions for

agriculture




51

Rural Policy Approaches

When the different rural policy drivers and responses are analysed we find that they tend

to coalesce into several policy approaches, each with a different policy focus and spatial logic

and with different implementation challenges for rural cultural landscapes (Table 1).

Table 1. Different approaches within rural landscape policy

Policy focus Spatial logic Examples of specific initiatives

Resource Purposive areal

designation

National Parks, heritage listings

Territory Integrated area

management

Local Area Plans

Sector Parametric Water quality standards

Issue Networks Local food partnerships

Resource focused policy has historically and continue to be typically based upon

purposive designation of some kind of ‗priority‘ or ‗target‘ areas, in which the protection,

conservation, or regeneration of particular natural and cultural resources and values are given

precedence over other values and functions. Territorial policy has historically been focused upon

land use policies and physical planning, particularly in urbanised or urbanising regions. There is

increasing emphasis upon the importance of integrated management of distinctive political or

homogenous landscape areas, and this can extend to non-material cultural values such as

landscape identity, as in the European Landscape Convention (ELC). Sectoral policy is typically

focused upon economic or service functions, such as agriculture. Strategies tend to be non

spatial, focused upon incentives or rules for particular activities (eg cultivation) or conditions (eg

water quality). Issue lead policy responds to emerging needs and opportunities that cross

resources, areas and sectors. Strategies tend to be increasingly based upon institutional

relationships and networks (eg local food cooperatives) (Fig. 3).

a b c d

Fig. 3: Contrasting policy strategies: Resource based designations (a); Integrated territorial

landscape management (b); Sectoral parametric measures (c); Issue based networks (d)

Resource Based Designations

Many landscapes are regulated through different types of purposive designation including

national parks, water protection areas, heritage landscapes and green belts. Such designated areas

– some are large expanding over several rural landscapes others are small including just parts of

a coherent landscape – are typically characterised by highly valuable resources, symbolic values




52

and/or visual qualities or by special locations. (Fig. 3) The purpose of designation varies (Selman

2006). Sometimes the designated areas represent something valuable to be protected (for

example against undesired forms of land use development). In other cases it may be that a

conservation strategy is required, to actively maintain a resource, for example hedgerows, or it

may need regeneration- for example re-afforestation. Regulatory measures from land use or

environmental legislation are the common instrument applied to protect resources, but in other

situations the designated areas are target areas for different types of action, ranging from land

purchase, to monetary incentives and disincentives, such as agri-environmental measures

through which the farmers inside the areas are offered grants for certain practices or public

supported projects such habitat restorations, to voluntarist educational programmes where the

main mechanism is moral suasion (Gilg 1996, Selman 2006).

There are several benefits of this approach. First, it allows legislation to be applied

differently to different kind of areas without violating the principal of equity before the law,

which is the basic rationale behind much of land use and planning laws. Another benefit is that it

enables efficient use of the funds available or at least is provides a means for prioritizing funds.

Finally the designation may also by itself be helpful for the local economy, for instance local

tourist businesses, because the designation of area- for example as a UNESCO heritage

landscape- may put focus on the qualities of the area in question and through this attract tourists.

However, designations are not without drawbacks. When certain areas are protected (against

some undesired changes for example) it means that others are not (Selman 2006). Designations

may risk reinforcing a polarisation of landscapes into on the one hand, very attractive, well

functioning (ecolocially and culturally) landscapes, and on the other, some ‗residual landscapes‘

without any ‗policy attention‘. An illustration of this is that nature reserves are not sufficient to

maintain biodiversity within a regional and global matrix of intensively used production space.

Connecting corridors and ecological fallows – ‗dynamic successional reserves‘ are also required

(Bengtson et al. 2003), but may fall outside the scope of the designated area policy.

Another potential cost of designations may be that farmers located outside priority areas–

and therefore not offered incentives - may be indirectly stimulated to either intensify production

or to give up farming – in both cases with potential negative landscape consequences. It can also

be seen as a limitation of the approach that is often not useful or meaningful to use in a local

planning context because the finer the scale the more difficult it is to draw the lines.

Deliberations over the extent of a designation can be highly contested if landowners fear that the

net effect will be a reduction of land value or flexibility. This means that within the local rural

landscape, designations are of limited value only. Finally, as the approach is highly dependent on

so called ‗objective‘ or ‗substantial‘ evidence it means it is difficult to apply more integrated

‗symbolic‘ strategies through designations.

Integrated Territorial Landscape Management

An approach very different from designations is to classify the region or area in question

according to entities or homogeneity (see figure 3b). The aim here is not to identify certain

special areas, sites or landscapes. Instead, the aim is to identify coherent areas – or landscapes.

This is the approach applied in landscape character mapping which has now been carried out at

different scales in many European countries. The approach is central to the European Landscape

Convention (ELC) signed by 38 and ratified by 33 (primo 2011) European countries. According

to Article 6 in the ELC each country shall identify its landscapes, assess the characteristics and

monitor changes. One major advantage of this approach compared to designations is that it




53

relates to people‘s everyday environments, and – although these environments vary in condition

and character – no one is excluded from policy attention, and no one is identified at the expense

of others. As part of place making processes it may help in strengthening local identity that the

local landscape is delineated, especially if the boundaries are openly discussed and represent

peoples own conceptualisation of ‗their landscape‘. One disadvantage with the approach may be

that it may be difficult to evaluate the policy effects in quantitative terms. This can be seen to

have two consequences. First, the argument can be made from a public choice perspective that

‗integrated‘ approaches may not be sufficiently ‗transparent‘. Second, they may be unattractive

to specific sectors, who may lose the pre-eminence they have within a sectoral approach (eg

farmers and agricultural policy). Set against this, a number of commentators highlight the

importance of spatially integrated policy for long term landscape sustainability and regeneration

(Selman 2006).

Sectoral-Parametric

Sectoral-parametric policy is focused upon the measurement and manipulation of

particular dimensions of a policy environment largely independently of location or place- such as

water quality standards. Parametric approaches to cultural landscape policy are a more recent

development, and may be seen expressed in recent agro-environmental schemes and in amenity

and heritage indicators within ecosystem service models. Here protection of conservation or

other outcomes are achieved by targeting the value of the ‗service‘ rather than a particular area.

Buffer strips along water courses or ‗beetle banks‘ crossing large fields are promoted because of

the positive effects they are assumed to have on reducing run offs and increasing biodiversity or

‗natural‘ predation‘ of pest insects for example – with the field (more or less decontextualised) as

the basic unit. This approach may also be used to validate the functional benefits of landscape

elements already in place, such as hedgerows and stonewalls. It has the benefit of reinforcing

beneficial processes and delivery of outcomes, rather than upon providing specified inputs and

outputs, and may be very cost-effective– there is no attempt to provide ‗most nature for money‘

– rather the opposite: most money from natural processes. This approach has, however a

drawback similar to the designation approach: what happens when the services provided by

certain landscape elements are clearly outnumbered by the economic benefits the farm gets to

remove these elements? And what about landscape elements which may be considered valuable

for their symbolic meanings but where the economic value of the ‗service‘ is hard to measure –

at least in a generally accepted way?

Issue Based Networks

Policy makers and planners have also been quick to incorporate new understandings of

rural network relationships ( Murdoch 2000) into policy formation for rural cultural landscapes-

for example in developing local partnerships. The focus here is upon constructive relationships

rather than upon location specific resources, areas, or particular ‗services‘. There are for example

a large number of rural landscape partnerships within the UK that, whilst based within a

particular locality or region, place most emphasis upon the identification and promotion of

institutional collaborations which are expected to have consequential positive benefits (Morgan

1997). Local food networks are an example (Morgan et al 2007), another is the Wildlife Trust in

England.




54

Getting the context right – general versus specific policy solutions

Local landscapes are increasingly being linked with other local landscapes through

growing flows of information, materials (including food) and people. At the same time however

they are frequently becoming less well connected to adjoining landscapes. There are two

implications of these processes. One is a growing awareness of the global extent and

consequences of urbanisation and structural change in agriculture for issues such as climate

change, water management, decline in biodiversity, and food security. These concerns drive

macro scale policy initiatives intended to better connect the market and sustainability agendas.

The emphasis here has tended to be upon cross compliance and integration of sustainability goals

into market based relationships (eg certification and ecosystem services). The second implication

is a growing interest among people for their own local places, including the local landscape in

which they live their lives, and this provides momentum for more integrated territorial policies

and for local networks and partnerships, seeking what Selman (2006) describes as ‗virtuous

circles‘ within local landscapes.

In Europe, a growing proportion of the dominant policy regime affecting rural cultural

landscapes- the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - is currently in transition from a strictly

sectoral (parametric) regime into a more comprehensive rural development policy regime, in

which EU environmental policies are linked with agricultural and socio economic goals within

the same territory. The ELC is also driving policy towards a more integrated perspective upon

landscape. In the US, rural policy remains strongly sectoral, driven by Federal agricultural policy

( Nassauer 2010). This is also the case in Japan where rural policies are strongly linked to

sectoral ministries. In agricultural producer countries such as the Cairns group, rural landscape

related policies are typically expressed as limited purposive designations, and this is also the case

in many developing economies. Non spatial landscape policy regimes such as ecosystem service

models and network partnerships are being strongly promoted by some sectors, and the challenge

here is to identify policy regimes and institutions by which to better manage the interface of

market systems with valued cultural landscapes.

Just as landscape has emerged as a powerful new integrating perspective in urban

planning and architecture, because of its ability to incorporate areal, parametric and networked

phenomena and initiatives (Ahern 2002, Swaffield and Primdahl 2006), so we also support the

need and potential for a new ‗landscape‘ perspective upon policy for cultural rural landscapes

(Selman 2006). The emphasise we place here is upon the need to better integrate social and

environmental concerns into the open markets agenda to cope with local consequences of global

changes. At a high level of policy the challenge is to find ways to articulate the need for locally

adapted actions within market based regimes. There are a number of examples of this within the

CAP where payments are dependent upon alignment with local priorities, and a similar albeit

limited linkage is present in some certification schemes. However the links are often poorly

formed, and need a mechanism such as an approved local landscape plan to be the precondition

for certification or ecosystem service payments.

At the sub regional and local level it is clear that none of the strategies used so far are

sufficient in themselves, and the pathway forward is through development of hybrid and

combined strategies. Here a key problem is one of local governance- particularly institutional

design, equity, and efficiency in policy making. The NZ experience of resource management

reform has highlighted the difficulty of ensuring adequate policy and planning capacity at a local

level and the high demands that adaptive local planning can place upon local communities,




55

particularly when faced with external change driven by global capital. Landscape based

deliberation requires time, skills, a willingness to collaborate, and a measure of local autonomy

and flexibility in decision making about resources that may be hard to achieve in a globalising,

urbanising world.

Local based collaborative approaches also need the support of a robust higher level policy

framework. The importance of global and supra national institutions is two fold. First in

establishing a framework of concepts and good practice that can be drawn upon (such as the

ELC and UNESCO categories), there is a hand up to local capacity. Second, by bringing external

attention to local values, these values acquire greater legitimacy. Even an evaluation which is

unsuccessful in gaining an international designation can draw out values and place them in a

wider context. Paradoxically, international sustainability institutions and their actions can be

primary agents in ensuring locally legitimate and effective policy for cultural rural landscapes,

just as international market institutions have in the past been catalysts for globalisation processes

that threaten those landscapes.

References

Bohnet I, Potter C, and Simmons E (2003) Landscape change in a multifunctional countryside:

A Biographical analysis of farmer decision making in the English High Weald. Landscape

Research 28(4) 349-64

Busck A.G., Kristensen S.B.P., Præstholm S., Reenberg A., and Primdahl J. (2006). Land system

changes in the context of urbanisation: examples from the peri-urban area of greater

Copenhagen. Danish Journal of Geography. 2006, 106(2):21-34

Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd

edition, London: Blackwell Publishers

EEA (2006). Urban Sprawl in Europe. The igsnored challenge.Characteristics, trends and policy

challenges. EEA-Report 10/2006. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency

Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press

Gilg A 1996 Countryside Planning: the first half Century. London, Taylor and Francis

Gottman, J. (1961). Megalopolis. The Urbanized North-Eastern Seaboard of the United States.

Twentieth Century Fund, New York

Dwyer, J. and Hodge, I. (2001). ‗The challenge of Change: Demands and Expectations for

Farmed Land‘. In Nature, Landscape and People since the Second World War T.C. Smout. (ed)

East Linton: Tuckwell Press, pp.117-134

Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999): Global Transformation. Politics,

Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press

International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 1994 Guidelines for

Protected Area Management categories. London IUCN

http://www.life.ku.dk/Service/Telefonbog/Personvisning.aspx?personid=




http://www.life.ku.dk/Service/Telefonbog/Personvisning.aspx?personid=687

http://www.forskningsbase.life.ku.dk/research/(8040535)






56

Morgan, K., Marsden, T. and Murdoch, J. (2007). Worlds of Food: Place, Power and Provenance

in the food Chain. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Morgan K (1997) The learning region: institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional

Studies 31(5) 491-503

Nassauer, J.I. (2010). Rural landscape change as a product of US federal policy. In:

Globalisation and agricultural landscapes: Change patterns and policy trends in developed

countries. J. Primdahl and S.R. Swaffield (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.

185-200

O‘Riordan, T. and Voisey, H. (1998). The Political Economy of the Sustainability Transition. In:

The Transition to Sustainability: the Politics of Agenda 21 in Europe. T. O‘Riordan and H.

Voisey (ed.). London: Earthcan, pp. 5-30

Pedroli B, Doorn A van, Blust, G de, Paracchini ML, Wascher D, Bunce F. (ed.) (2007).

Europe's living landscapes. Essays exploring our identity in the countryside. Landscape Europe,

Wageningen. Zeist: KNNV Publishing

Peil, T. and Jones, M. (ed.) (2005): Landscape, Law and Justice. Oslo: Novus Forlag

Primdahl, J. (1999). Agricultural landscapes as places for production and for living in owner‘s

versus producer‘s decision making and the implications for planning. Landscape and Urban

Planning, 46, 143-150

Primdahl J. and Swaffield S.R. (ed), 2010a. Globalisation and agricultural landscapes: Change

patterns and policy trends in developed countries. CUP, Cambridge

Primdahl, J. and Swaffield, S.R. (2010)b. Globalisation and the sustainability of agricultural

landcapes. In: Globalisation and agricultural landscapes: Change patterns and policy trends in

developed countries. J. Primdahl and S.R Swaffield (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, pp. 1-15

Primdahl, J., Andersen, E., Swaffield, S.R., Kristensen, L.S. The intersecting dynamics of

agricultural structural change and urbanisation within European rural landscapes – change

patterns and policy implications. In Proceedings from the conference: Living landscape – the

European Landscape Convention in Research Perspective. Pisa: Bandecchi & Vibaldi 2010,

pp.355-370

Selman P (2006) Planning at the Landscape Scale. London , Routledge

Stanner, D. og Bourdeau, P. (1995): Europe's Environment. The Dobris Assessment. European

Environment Agency, København

Swaffield SR & Primdahl J 2006 ‗Spatial concepts in landscape analysis and policy: Some

implications of globalisation‘ Landscape Ecology 21(3) 315-331

Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, and Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability

and intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671-677




57

Watts, M. and Goodman, D. (1997). Agrian questions. Global appetite, local metabolism: nature,

culture, and industry in in fin-de-siècle agro-food systems. In Globalising Food, Agrian

Questions and Global Restructuring (ed.). D Goodmann and M. Watts. London: Routledge, pp.

1-32

World Commission on Environment and Development (1987): Our Common Future. Oxford:

Oxford University Press

Zlotnik, H. (2004). World urbanisation: trends and prospects. In New Forms of Urbanisation.

Beyond the Urban-Rural Dichotomy (ed.) T. Champion and G. Hugo. Aldershot: Ashgate




58

Cultural Identity and Terraphilia

Zoran Roca Territory, Culture and Development Research Center, Lusófona University, Portugal

Maria de Nazaré Roca Research Centre for Geography and Regional Planning, Nova University, Portugal

Introduction

Over the past two decades the Portuguese academic, political and media discourses have

advocated topophilia, or ―the affective bond between people and place, or setting‖ (Tuan 1990:

4), in order to curtail mistreatment, profanation, degradation, waist, etc. of the uniqueness of

places and regions and, at the same time, to strengthen and/or (re)affirm local cultural

authenticity, or distinctiveness and identity as a development resource for places and regions.

Major argument has been that people should not only be sensitized about, but also engaged in the

protection of natural environment, cultural heritage and other distinct features of the geographic

space of residence, work and leisure (Albino 1997). Progress in the encouragement of topophilia

can be evidenced, for example, in the integration of sustainable development principles in basic

education curricula and Local Agenda 21 projects, in the flourishing of local/regional

museology, in the revitalization of historic urban nuclei and other built heritage, and in the

advocacy of the use of local natural, economic and cultural resources for the development of the

lagging rural areas (Roca 1998; 1999; 1999a), as well as for the revival of the sprit of

regionalism (Oliveira and Roca 2005).

It should be borne in mind, however, that topophilia changes as localities and regions

become ―produced‖ and ―contradictory spaces‖ (Lefebvre 1991), affected by

―deterritorialisation‖ (Barel 1986), or by ―detraditionalization‖ (Giddens 1994; Heelas 1999), if

not yet by the ―end of territory‖ (Badie 1995), or ―annihilation of space by time―(Harvey 2003).

Furthermore, topophilia alters with the emergence of ―global sense of place‖ (Massey 1991;

Rose 1995) and/or ―contested spaces‖ (Massey and Jess 1995). In spite of ―continuous salience

of places as settings for social and economic existence, and for forging identities, struggles, and

strategies of both a local and global nature‖ (Amin and Thrift 1994), topophilia also changes as

localities and regions become ―networked‖ and ―receptive to innovation‖ (Todtling 1994), ―on‖

and ―of the minds‖ (Agnew 1999), ―claimed‖ (Haartsen et al. 2000), ―recomposed‖ and

―articulated‖ (Benko 2000), ―re-affirmed‖ (Roca 2004), or indeed ―re-territorialized‖ (Haesbaert

2004) in the context of globalized economy and culture.

It has been amply evidenced that these kinds of changes have affected cultural identity of

many places and regions of Portugal. In fact, in spite of the efforts to encourage topophilia, the

loss of cultural identity has been on a constant increase in many spheres of life: from the

progressive reduction of ecological and demographic sustainability of rural areas, to the

deterioration of social and economic fabric and autonomy at the local level, often accompanied

by chaotic land use, blatant visual pollution and indeed conflicts between rural and urban

lifestyles, and a fierce competition for physical and social space between local(ized) and

global(ized) agents of economic and cultural change. The most notorious examples of such

alterations are, for example: substitution of the traditional terraced vineyards and of the mixed

cropping patterns by the modern, more productive and profitable, thus ―more competitive‖,




59

agricultural production techniques; adoption of consumer models that favour concentration of

commercial activity at the expense of traditional retailing; abandonment of social values such as

inter-generational solidarity and growing solitude and exclusion as commonly assumed social

patterns; loss of demographic vitality through ageing and emigration, and the consequent

reconfiguration of the spatial distribution of settlements (Ferrão 2002; 2004; Roca 2004).

Why is there a growing distance between the claims in favour of territorial identity as a local

development resource on one side and, on the other, the anti-identity reality and, thus, the fading

of topophilia? What could be done to stop this tendency? Policy-relevant answers and solutions

to such questions call for empirical records and taxonomies of the changing local identity

features affecting topophilia, for recognition of attitudes and deeds among the agents of local

change, and, ultimately, for endowing the concept of topophilia in terms of a pro-active,

developmental perspective. To this end, inn this presentation we bring forward research findings

obtained over the last decade from, first, a countrywide survey on the perception of the local

identity-globalisation interface in rural Portugal and, second, a regional case study on the

topophilia-terraphilia interface and local development. ―Terraphilia‖ has been a concept recently

coined by our research team and defined as ―affective bond between people and territory that

encourage local development intervention‖ that complements the notion of topophilia as its ―pro-

developmental extension‖ (Oliveira et al. 2010).

Local identity-globalisation interface

The need to care about cultural and features of local identity has been accepted as the

conditio sine qua non for further development of the Portuguese economy and society, especially

in rural areas, in the context of globalisation, or, as Albino suggested, "local identity must be

operationalised into a development resource ... The strategy of local development should be

based on the appreciation of the ancestral typicality as a means of encouraging further evolution

of new local innovations" (1997: 113).

In order to reconcile local development needs, potentials and contexts with globalized

conditionalities, a comprehensive appreciation of the origin and nature of the identity features of

geographical localities (places) and areas (regions) is required. The problem, nonetheless, is that

the concept of local identity has not been an analytical category. ―Local identity‖ can indeed

imply a great diversity of meanings, such as ―unique properties‖ of places and regions, their

―characteristics and particularities‖, ―natural and cultural heritage‖, ‖endogenous potentials‖ and

‖comparative (dis)advantages‖. Most often the actual content, scope and value judgements

behind such generalisations tend to remain subjectively driven, unclear and biased, thus

inadequate for the development policy and strategy design, or for development planning and

project formulation purposes that should normally derive from empirical records of verifiable

facts.

If it is unclear what the identity of a place and region means in practical and verifiable

terms, that is, beyond the generic and subjective designations, how can one determine what

aspect of identity needs to be strengthened, preserved, diversified, or made more competitive, so

that it becomes a factor of development? Furthermore, how to monitor and evaluate changes in

local identity, against which reference tresholds? Which quantiqualitative benchmarks should be

used to distinguish, compare, or predict desirable from unwanted changes in local identity? And,

even if the nature of local development issues at stake and the needs for change were identified,

who are the legitimate ―guardians‖ of local identity, that is, which institutions or individuals are

capable, or entitled, to cope with forces of globalisation locally?

Shortly after the last turn of the century, in the framework of our research project on the




60

effects of globalisation and local development in Portugal, a ground-breaking attempt was made

to detect the presence and nature of the changing local identity features in rural areas and to gain

insight about the role of development stakeholders in that change. To this end, an exploratory,

countrywide survey on knowledge, attitudes and practice (KAP) of local development agents in

relation to local identity and globalisation was carried out. A KAP questionnaire was

conceptualised in a way that enabled recording perceptions of a fairly wide range local identity

features and issues, as outlined hereunder.

KAP Survey

The objective of the KAP survey was to examine the local development stakeholders'

representations of the identity features of territories on which they operate, of local changes

attributable to globalisation, and of the roles individuals and institutions play in valorising, or

not, the specific identity features as local development resources. The working definition of

―local identity‖ in the questionnaire was that "it represents a set of cultural, social, economic,

technological and other specificities of a territory that make it different from other territories".

Such broad, value-free, designation was introduced in order to maximise conditions for the

spontaneity of answers from different stakeholders and, thus, for bringing more light to the issue

of "whose identity or identities are we talking about, and who determines the regional identity of

an area" (Groote et al. 2000: 2). Likewise, in parts of the KAP questionnaire focussed on global

effects on local identity and development, the notion of ―globalisation‖ was generically

introduced as "a growing interdependence, at the world level, of tendencies, problems, values,

life-stiles and decisions". It was hoped that it would minimise possible respondents' perceptions

of the ―global‖ as everything that is ―not local‖, in view of the fact that "depending on the degree

of inclusion-exclusion of each place in the world economy, 'global' can refer to the next city and

region or the actual economy and society" (Hadjimicalis 1994: 241).

In order to facilitate response on such complex concepts and issues, the questions were

closed, with multiple-choice answers, and the concept of local identity was presented in an

extensively disaggregated manner. A step-wise process of disaggregation consisted of

itemisation of local identity features, and creation of a roster of local identity components. The

finally obtained roster consisted of seventy-five components that mirror major traditionally

salient and recently emerging identity features of rural Portugal. In the KAP questionnaire, all

these identity components were clustered in three spheres - socio-cultural, socio-economic and

techno-economic. The KAP questionnaire was intended for local and regional development

experts and activists (LDAs) in rural areas. Out of ninety-two addressed, responses were

obtained from seventy-four LDAs, mostly senior professional staff in local development

agencies in the interior parts of the regions North, Centro, Alentejo and Algarve.

Findings

On local identity

Asked to express their views on the importance of local identity in development of the area

in which they operate, LDAs unanimously supported the idea that "to care about local identity

must be a priority in the local development interventions‖ and a large majority agreed that local

identity ―must become competitive in order to enable local development‖. Likewise, a majority

shared the view that "a strong local identity is an essential prerequisite for local development‖

and also favoured (though not so explicitly) the idea that ―adequate valorisation of local identity

is hardly possible without the intervention of locally recruited local development agents.‖

On the other side, large majority of LDAs disagreed with allegations such as that "it does




61

not make sense to worry about local identity in the era of the globalisation" and that

"conservation of traditional values, arts and crafts impedes the modernisation of local economy

and society.‖ A less firm negative response was recorded on the suggestion that ―it is worth

sacrifying the traditional local identity if that would help increasing the economic prosperity of a

local community‖.

The LDAs reacted much less unanimously in supporting or rejecting the suggestion that "the

strength of local identity has to do with the capacity to resist external influences". An even

greater disagreement was on the idea that ―underdevelopment reflects the persistence of negative

characteristics of local identity‖. The most controversial issue, however, seems to be whether

"the persistence of negative characteristics of local identity has to do with internal or external

factors", on which approximately equal shares of affirmative, negative and neutral response were

obtained.

Requested to portray the area in which they operate by indicating the level of presence of

the components of local identity, the majority of LDAs ranked as highest the traditional events,

traditional cultural landscape, constructed rural heritage and traditional culinary art. A sizeable

share of medium ranks (20-40% of responses) was attributed to a wide diversity of salient

identity components such as traditional modes of conviviality, use of traditional public places,

traditional arts and crafts and presence of collective memory and conservative localism, but also

to a wide range of newly emerging features such as the presence of national and international

tourists, degradation of cultural landscape, penetration of urban lifestyles in villages, public

investments in local culture, production of local journals and positive cultural image of the area

of LDAs' operations. The lowest importance (less than 10% of responses) was attributed to

components such as the religiousness of the youth, xenophobia and multiethnic conviviality,

while environmental conscientiousness still does not make part of the local cultural identity.

Regarding the socio-economic sphere of local identity, most LDAs attributed highest ranks

to two most notorious features of contemporary rural Portugal: the aged population and exodus

of the youth. Not surprisingly, given the faded spirit of entrepreneurship in lagging rural areas

(Barreto 2000), insecure employment was ranked third, followed by the medium presence (15-

30% responses) of a mixture of "well established" features such as, assistencialismo (spirit of

passive dependence on external assistance), unemployment, rural-urban development gap,

traditional solidarity relations, on one side and, on the other, new phenomena such as

consumerism, growing social inequalities and pluriactivity. The weakest presence (less than 10%

responses) LDAs attributed to several identity feature that are most usually considered as

strategically important for social progress, such as educational attainment, entrepreneurial spirit

and incentives to retain youth.

Regarding the techno-economic dimension of local identity, no component was considered

outstandingly present by the majority of LDAs. The highest ranks (over 30% responses) belong

to identity features that reflect the still prevailing traditional economic structure, i.e., subsistence

agriculture and small, atomised commerce, but also some important elements of progress, such

as recent investments in domestic water supply and solid waste collection. Medium ranks (10-

30% responses) belong to such diverse components as the SMEs and micro- enterprises,

alternative tourism and leisure industry, as well as the use of old industrial technology and

environmental problems such as water pollution, and forest and soil degradation. The minimum

presence (less than 5% responses) was ascribed to features that are usually regarded as

symptoms of progress and innovation in rural areas, such as modernisation of agricultural

technology, external demand for local agricultural products, increased external investments (both

national and foreign) and organic farming. Finally, the LDAs consider that the adoption of new




62

information/communication technologies is not at all a local identity feature.

On globalisation

The only globalisation-related argument on which the majority of the LDAs expressed their

absolute support is "that it is necessary to challenge globalisation at the local level", while on

other issues their reactions diverged in all directions. While extremely opposite attitudes were

expressed on the issue of whether globalisation of communication technologies is beneficial only

to the elites, the two allegations that provoked greatest divergence and indeed scepticism (neutral

answers) among the LDAs are that ―globalisation of markets and competitiveness can contribute

to the affirmation of small-scale economy‖ and that ―globalisation is more in favour than against

the objectives of local development‖. Finally, on the issue of whether ―globalisation creates ever-

greater opportunities for social and economic development in the peripheral regions‖ a near

majority expressed affirmative views, but this issue provoked also important shares of neutral

and negative reactions.

Regarding the effects of specific manifestations of globalisation on Portuguese society and

economy, the LDAs showed greatest unanimity in denouncing the effects of globalisation of

consumption patterns and lifestyles.

A less strong, but clear unanimity was shown also in praising globalisation of

communication technologies and of civic conscientiousness and critical citizenship. A greater

inclination towards positive than negative stand was revealed regarding globalisation of financial

capital and investments, as well as of markets and competitiveness.

In contrast to the above, the views of LDAs diverge very much regarding effects of

globalisation on the geographic area in which they operate. While the majority praises the

globalisation of communication technologies and of civic conscientiousness and critical

citizenship, there is an important share of neutral views on these issues. On the other side, while

no LDA considers local effects of globalisation on consumption patterns and lifestyles as "very

negative", there is a great deal of divergence between those who support and those who are

uncertain or have "more negative than positive" views towards this phenomenon. Greatest level

of uncertainty and indeed division among the LDAs was recorded regarding local effects of

globalisation of financial capital and of markets and competitiveness

It seems that, in general terms, more positive than negative effects of globalisation on the

socio-cultural sphere of identity have been felt in areas in which LDAs operate, particularly

regarding the components such as environmental conscientiousness, cultural production, private

sponsorship of local culture, presence of international tourists, external cultural image and public

investments in local cultur. Most LDAs attributed negative effects to only two components,

namely traditional modes of conviviality and collective memory. Among other more negatively

than positively affected components are cultural landscapes (both, well preserved and degraded),

traditional public spaces and traditional events. Equal shares of LDAs consider penetration of

urban lifestyles in villages as positive and negative effect of globalisation.

Regarding the socio-economic sphere of identity, the LDAs indicated a much smaller

number of positively than negatively affected components. The majority of LDAs reported

positive effects only on the creation of new employment opportunities, higher educational

attainment, people's entrepreneurial spirit and presence of professionals from other regions. The

overwhelming majority attributed negative effects to a wide diversity of traditional and recently

emerged components such as the exodus of the youth, consumerist spirit, insecure employment,




63

rural-urban inequality, peoples‘ indebtedness, social crises and conflicts (drugs, crime), social

inequality, unemployment, pockets of poverty and traditional solidarity relations.

Finally, the LDAs attributed more positive, neutral and unknown, than negative effects of

globalisation to identity components in the techno-economic sphere. Most of them associated

positive effects to alternative tourism and leisure industry, the role of financial institutions,

adoption of communication and information technologies, as well as to technological

modernisation of industry and agriculture. Most negatively affected seem to be traditional

commerce, micro-enterprises, old industrial production and agriculture, both subsistence and

commercial. The unknown effects are attributed mostly to recently emerging features, bringing

new dynamics to local economy, such as the big enterprises, supermarkets, organic farming and

tourism and leisure industry.

On development stakeholders

The LDAs reported that, at the time of the survey, their activities were mostly (over 30%)

related to the revalorisation of old features of socio-cultural identity, such as traditional arts and

crafts, traditional events and modes of conviviality and collective memory, as well as to the

raising of local people's self-esteem, and cultural production. It was also recorded that

concentration on tradition-related identity components was very similar to earlier concluded

interventions in which LDAs participated. Major change occurred only regarding the people's

self-esteem, which is currently more represented. The least amount (less than 10%) of the LDAs‘

current engagement had to do with components such as multiethnic conviviality, xenophobia and

conservative localism. It is worth mentioning that over 50% of LDAs expressed their preference

for participating in future development intervention in which exactly these identity components,

in addition to the revalorisation of cultural landscape and increasing environmental

consciousness, would be highly prioritised.

The socio-economic identity components are more present in the current activities of LDAs

than the socio-cultural ones, the highest-ranked being the creation of new employment

opportunities, promotion of people's entrepreneurial spirit, reduction of unemployment,

incentives to retain youth, improving professional qualification, and promotion of pluriactivity. It

was also recorded that in their earlier activities LDAs were less oriented to the socio-economic

sphere and that the focus was quite different, i.e., none of the currently highest-ranking

components was a priority in their earlier interventions. As to the future, most LDAs expressed

greatest interest in participating in local development interventions in which social cohesion,

rural-urban inequalities, consumerist spirit, care for the elderly and exodus of the youth, would

be addressed.

Regarding the techno-economic sphere most LDAs currently participate in interventions that

promote alternative tourism and leisure industry, micro-enterprises and SMEs, commercial

agriculture, as well as communication and information technologies. Similar to the socio-

economic sphere, the priorities of LDAs are nowadays different from the past interventions,

when traditional features such as small commerce and subsistence agriculture were mostly dealt

with. Records also showed that, in the future, most LDAs would like to intervene in the areas of

the techno-economic sphere that have been underrepresented (less than 15%) in both past and

current activities, such as different forms of environmental degradation (forests, soil, air, water),

modernisation of agriculture and industry, attraction of external financing and marketing of local

products.

When requested in the KAP questionnaire to qualify the role of different local individuals as

local development stakeholders in relation to the socio-cultural sphere of identity, LDAs pointed




64

to local political leaders as the only outstanding ―promoters of cultural linkages and exchange‖

with the outside world. Furthermore, most of the LDAs considered students, return migrants and

highly skilled professionals as local stakeholders who "easily adopt external cultural innovation",

while small merchants, small and medium farmers, small and medium industrial entrepreneurs

and retirees are the most notable among those who "do not adopt easily external cultural

innovation". Among those who "oppose external and glorify local culture", the most frequently

highlighted were the new residents from other countries.

Regarding the institutional stakeholders, most LDAs consider that true ―promoters of

cultural exchange‖ are only local and regional development agencies, local governments, modern

civic associations, cultural institutions and secondary schools. While just the Catholic Church

and social assistance institutions "do not adopt cultural innovation easily", there are no great

differences among other institutions in respect to the preservation of the socio-cultural sphere of

local identity.

Topophilia - terraphilia interface

An intensive field research on LDAs knowledge, assessment and practice (KAP) regarding

territorial identity as development resource was carried out in 2008 and 2009 in the Oeste (a

NUTS III, NW of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area), a region where the pro-identity rhetoric and

aspirations based on environmental, economic and cultural competitiveness have been placed

high on local development agendas. The research aim was to record the incidence of topophilia

and detect the character of terraphilia among the LDAs. The assumption was that the emergence

of terraphilia, a concept that amalgamates topophilia and a pro-developmental approach

(Oliveira et al, 2010), can reveal the strength and transparency of the lDAs‘ resolve to (re)affirm

local identity. The conceptual-methodological framework applied in this research was the

Identerra Model (Roca & Roca, 2007).

On the basis of the macroscopic (desk) studies of the region as whole, four contiguous counties

of the Oeste were selected as the study area for the field research. The participatory research

method was based on KAP Workshop protocols designed specifically to detect and record the

level and nature of the match (interface) between the experienced (topophilia) and sought

(terraphilia) aspects of the subjective dimension of territorial identity, as defined in the Identerra

Model.

KAP Workshops

A KAP Workshop is based on phased collection and processing (content analysis) of primary

information obtainable from individual and group statements, discussions on the sense of

belonging to a territory, and group appraisals of the experienced and sought qualities of the

constituents of the natural environment, and of social, economic and cultural structures and

dynamics. The initial recording of the participants‘ profiles and their definition of the concrete

local identity features - such as those of natural and built environment, social customs and habits,

arts and crafts - is followed by retrospective and prospective diagnostics of the ―most important‖

positive (―desirable‖) and negative (―unwanted‖) features and of their classification in terms of

duration (―traditional‖ vs. ‖recent‖), stability (‖vanishing‖ vs. ‖resistant‖) and the participants‘

feelings (‖optimism‖ vs. ‖pessimism‖) about their evolution. Furthermore, local, regional,

national and/or supranational institutional and/or individual responsibilities are attributed to the

changing positive and negative qualities of the specific territorial identity features. In the final

stage, the KAP Workshop participants bring forward proposals that stem from their previous

retrospective and prospective diagnostics and prioritisations of problems at stake and from

consensually reached definitions of policy solutions, concrete actions and relevant development




65

agents.

The socio-demographic characteristics, professional profile and work experience of forty-seven

KAP Workshop participants from the selected counties of the Oeste guaranteed a collection of

data based on a high level of familiarity with a wide range of territorial identity features and

responsible attitudes toward local development issues. The main findings are summarized

hereunder.

Findings

Diagnostic and prospective attitudes

In responding to the question ―Which are the most important elements that characterize your

county?‖, the participants specified a wide range of landscape- and lifestyle-related elements,

i.e., from those that are part of the objective traditional (e.g.: windmills, gastronomy and built

heritage) and emerging identity (e.g.: new orchards, urban settlements and tourism industry), to

the subjective identities (e.g.: distressed/improved urban environment, traditional/modern social

relations, and fragile/competitive economy). After having identified two aspects that, in their

opinion, most positively and most negatively affect their county of residence, and to classify

them as ―traditional‖ or ‖recent‖ and as ‖resistant‖ or ‖vanishing‖, they declared their

‖pessimism‖ or ‖optimism‖ regarding the future evolution of these aspects. The open-ended

responses were classified and their frequencies recorded in accordance with the landscape- and

lifestyle-related territorial identity features (Nature, Society, Economy and Culture) of the

Identerra Model.

The participants‘ definitions and assessments of priority positive and negative identity features

of their counties can be synthesized as follows:

- the responses are more unanimous about positive identity features, while the negative ones

are very diverse and hard to define in concrete terms – which is a general indication of a high

degree of topophilia shared among the participants;

- the assessment of the natural environment is predominantly positive, although some threats

are differentiated between the more urbanised counties (e.g.: pollution, car traffic) and the more

rural ones (e.g.: waste depository in the Cadaval county); this should be paid attention to by

future local development policies;

- the social issues, frequently referred to as stemming directly from the activity of local agents,

clearly emerge on the positive side when related to community cooperation and assistance

networks, but also on the negative side when related to the rural settings marked by strong social

control (e.g.: resistance of small communities to some aspects of social modernisation);

- the economy is, no doubt, the identity element subject to strong individual and collective

disagreement; on one side, the weak bases of local economies emerged as negatively assessed

features from the point of view of both unemployment and low quality of the entrepreneurial

structures; however, on the other side, the components of economic infrastructure, such as those

that improved accessibilities and potentials for the development of tourism industry, are

positively assessed;

- regarding cultural features, such as, first, the attachment to the legacy of the rural milieu,

intrinsic qualities of local people and gastronomic tradition, and, second, the elements of built

heritage that in every county constitute important spatial fixes, the former ones are assessed

rather negatively though with some hesitance, while the latter ones are eulogized in such a

manner that a high level of topophilia mentioned above is actually reconfirmed.




66

Experienced identity & development features

The consensual group responses revealed that the common denominators of the positive

priority territorial identity & development features of the participants‘ counties are (i) landscapes

and historic heritage, (ii) natural landscapes, (iii) quality of life, and (v) rurality. As the negative

features the groups consensually prioritized (i) economic development, (ii) social development,

(iii) infrastructure and public services, (iv) human capital development and traditional productive

activity, (v) social and economic development, and (vi) associativism.

The content analyses of the collected information have shown that there is a high level of

correspondence between the experimented subjective identity (topophilia) and the objective

identity established on the basis of the indicators used in the previous macroscopic analysis,

based on the available statistical data. Qualities of the landscapes and of the cultural-historical

heritage and the preserved rurality that amalgamates specificities of natural and cultural

landscapes and lifestyle patterns are the most prominent among the positive territorial identity

aspects. Among the negative ones, weaknesses of the development process, low levels of human

capital development and inadequate accessibility to public services are highlighted.

Sought identity & development features

The components of the experienced identity features, reported by the groups as consensual

priorities were object of further group discussions aimed at the formulation of specific action

proposals for the maximisation of positive and minimisation of negative identity aspects. Every

proposal for action was accompanied by the groups‘ suggestions as to which development agent

should be engaged. The responses referring to action proposals and development agents were

classified according to the character of the envisaged action and the institutional framework,

respectively. All consensually defined positive and negative territorial identity and development

priority issues are intersected with the groups‘ proposals for actions. Also, the proposed actions

are intersected by groups‘ suggestions regarding the agents to be engaged in the concretization of

such actions. This entire exercise (i.e., the KAP Workshop and data processing) enabled to detect

the incidence and nature of terraphilia amongst the participants.

Considering that the sense of terraphilia increases with the capacity to formulate proposals

to solve the weaknesses and to maximize the defined strengths, it was possible to assess the

intensity of terraphilia based on the numbers and kinds of priority issues and on the typology of

suggested actions for the solution of these issues. It was also possible to delineate actions

considered most pertinent/relevant for resolving the weaknesses and maximizing strengths, as

well as to identify agents that should implement these actions and could, at the same time,

become targets of some specific actions aimed at raising their levels of terraphilia (e.g.: activities

of territorial marketing, or at least the sensitization for their involvement in some actions through

pointing to their specific problem solving capacities).

Conclusions

The countrywide survey on the perception of the local identity - globalisation nexus in rural

Portugal showed that the LDAs are quite unanimous in supporting the common pro-identity

rhetoric, but disagree on specific, tangible and more subtle topics and dilemmas, such as, for

example, whether local factors, and not only global ones, cause and perpetrate negative identity

features and underdevelopment, and whether to accept the trade-offs between modernisation and

tradition, at the expense of the latter, in the name of social and economic progress. Most LDAs

are very critical towards their local communities, pointing to the strong presence of identity

features such as assistencialismo, low self-esteem, local conservatism, lack of entrepreneurship




67

and low educational attainment, i.e., symptoms of deep rooted socio-economic passivity and

stagnation. It is, therefore, not surprising that the LDAs expressed greatest mutual disagreement,

and indeed scepticism about the prospects for (re)affirmation of local identities as a means of

increasing competitiveness of local culture and economy.

It seems that ―glocalization‖ has not yet significantly contributed to local identities.

According to the LDAs, the traditional local ―fixes‖ and ―horizontalities‖, related to cultural

values, lifestyles, social institutions and economic structure, still dominate over recently

emerging identity components synonymous to global ―flows‖ and ―verticalities‖ (Santos, 1994),

such as consumerism, international and alternative tourism and leisure industry, rurbanization,

integration of external professionals and secondary residents. Likewise, very weak presence of

components such as commercial agriculture, external investments, modern industrial technology

and big firms show that ‗networked regions‖ and local ―embededness‖ of global economic

agents (Agnew 2000; Todtling 1994) are still not a reality. More, the LDAs' assertion that

telematics is not yet notable as an identity component of rural Portugal corroborates similar

findings from other peripheral countries and regions (Ilbery et al. 1995).

All of the most strongly present identity components related to cultural traditions, human

resources and structure of economy seem to have been more negatively than positively affected

by globalisation. In fact, LDAs point to imminent loss of certain features that are commonly

considered as ―uniquely Portuguese‖, thus representing potentially competitive local

development assets (Albino 1997; Benko 2000), such as the traditional cultural landscape,

traditional events and habits and collective memory.

On the other, more reassuring side, some moderately present local identity components -

such as commercial agriculture and external demand for local products, international tourism,

local cultural production and, potentially linked to all those, creation of new employment

opportunities - seem to be much more positively than negatively associated with impacts of

globalisation. Furthermore, it is encouraging that currently very weakly present but desirable,

dynamic, innovative and/or potentially competitive identity components - such as environmental

conscientiousness, people's self-esteem and entrepreneurial spirit, professional qualification,

incentives to retain the youth, modernisation of agricultural technology, organic farming and

external investments, as well as adoption of telematics - also seem to be much more positively

than negatively associated with globalisation.

Regarding the role of LDAs, at least two features need to be stressed. First, compared with

the past, the current development interventions in which LDAs participate are more focused on

the alleviation of negative and assimilation of positive social and economic effects of

globalisation. Second, LDAs expressed readiness for future active engagement in activities

addressing exactly those local identity features that are negatively affected by globalisation and,

at the same time, are underrepresented in their current interventions - such as the care for cultural

landscape, external image, rural-urban cohesion, people's consumerism and indebtedness, exodus

of the youth, adoption of telematics, promotion of external demand for local products,

introduction of organic farming and prevention of forest and soil degradation. In a way, this is in

line with the expectation that ‗territorial mobilisation‘ will emerge in defence of local priorities

against globalisation (Hadjimichalis 1994).

At the local level, the KAP Workshops in the Oeste region showed that the operationalization of

the concept of topophilia into terraphilia facilitates recordings of development agents‘

knowledge and assessment of manifestations of territorial identity, their quests for change, and

their capacity to envisage viable policies and actions that promote affirmation of local identity as




68

a development resource. Furthermore, the detected presence of terraphilia could be used as a

lever between topophilia (experienced subjective territorial identity) at present and a new,

development-driven objective (factual) territorial identity in the future. In other words, there is

all reason to believe that the enhancements of landscape- and lifestyle-related features of today‘s

problematic territorial identity features could be achieved through the materialization of

terraphilia of LDAs and its promotion amongst other development stakeholders.

Last but not least, it is worth stressing that to study development agents‘ knowledge, attitudes

and practice in a given territory in the framework of topophilia and terraphilia concepts may be

fundamental for the orientation of planning processes. This is especially important in Portugal

where public participation has been explicitly reinforced in the planning legislation only

recently, since 2007. In this context, more research is needed aimed at further disaggregating and

inventorying diverse components that constitute one‘s affection to specific territorial settings

(topophilia) and keenness to promote territorial development (terraphilia). This, in turn, can yield

tangible results that can help more efficient focussing and implementation of development

policies based on the affirmation of local identity as both a development objective and a

resource.

References

Agnew, J. (1999). `Regions on the Mind does not Equal Regions of the Mind,` Progress in

Human Geography, 23 (1), pp.91-96.

Agnew, J. (2000). `From the Political Economy of Regions to Regional Political Economy.`

Progress in Human Geography, 24, 1. pp.101-110.

Albino, C. (ed.) (1997). Desenvolver Desenvolvendo - Práticas e Pistas para o Desenvolvimento

Local no Alentejo. Messejana: ESDIME C.R.L.

Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (1994). `Living in the Global,` in A. Amin and N. Thrift (eds),

Globalisation, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Badie, B. (1995). La fin des territoires. Paris: Fayard.

Barel, Y. (1986). ´Le social et ses territoires,´ in E. Auriac et R. Brunet (eds.), Espaces, jeux et

enjeux. Paris : Fayard-Diderot.

Barreto, A. (org.) (2000). A situação social em Portugal. Lisboa: ICS

Benko, G. (2000). `La recomposition des espaces,` Agir - Revue géneral de stratégie, 5, pp.11-

18.

Ferrão, J. (2002). Portugal, três geografias em recombinação: Espacialidades, mapas cognitivos e

identidades territoriais, Lusotopie, 2.

Ferrão, J. (2004). Dinâmicas territoriais e trajectórias de desenvolvimento: Portugal 1991-2001.

Lisboa: ICS.

Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond Left and Right — the Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Groote, P. et al. (2000). ´Claiming Rural Identities. In: T Haartsen et al. Claiming Rural

Identities. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Haartsen, T. et al. (2000). Claiming Rural Identities. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Hadjimichalis, C. (1994). ´Global-Local Conflicts: Examples from Southern Europe.´ in A.

Amin and N. Thrift (eds.). Globalisation, Institutions and Regional Development in

Europe. Oxford University Press.

Haesbaert, R. (2004). Mito da Desterritorialização. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Bertrand Brasil.

Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.




69

Heelas, P. et al. (1999). Detraditionalization: Critical Reflections on Authority and Identity at a

Time of Uncertainty. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Ilbery, B. et al. (1995). ´Telematics and Rural Development: Evidence from a Survey of Small

Businesses in the European Union. European Urban and Regional Studies. 2. pp. 55-67.

Lefevre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. London: Basil Blackwell.

Massey, D. (1991). ‗A global sense of place‘, Marxism Today, June, pp.24-9. (reprinted in

Massey, D. (2004). Space, place and gender. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 46-56).

Massey, D. and Jess, P. eds. (1995). A Place in the World? Places, Cultures and Globalisation.

Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Oliveira, J. A., and Roca, Z. (2005). Plano de Acção para o Desenvolvimento do Concelho da

Pampilhosa da Serra (Vol. 2). Loures: Vigaprintes.

Oliveira, J. A., Roca, Z. and Leitão, N. (2010). Territorial Identity and Development: From

Topophilia to Terraphilia. Land Use Policy, 27(3).

Roca, Z. (1998). `Positive Experiences in Increasing the Involvement of Young Men and

Women in Rural Development in Portugal,` in Youth and Rural Development in Europe:

Policy Issues and Responses. Rome: FAO.

Roca, Z. (1999). `Local Development Contexts and Agents: An Analytical Model and

Experience from Portugal,` in I. Bowler, Ch. Bryant, and A. Firmino (eds.) Progress in

Research on Sustainable Rural Systems. Lisbon: IGU/CEGPR/UNL.

Roca, Z. (1999a). Local Development Initiatives and Agents: Relevance of Portuguese

Experience for the European Countries in Transition. Proceedings of the Third Moravian

Geographical Conference, CONGEO‘99 Regional Prosperity and Sustainability, Brno:

Institute of Geonics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.

Roca, Z. (2004). `Affirmation of Regional Identity between Rhetoric and Reality: Evidence from

Portugal,` in E. Boneschansker et al. (eds.), Cultural Uniqueness and Regional Economy.

Leeuwarden, Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy.

Roca, Z., & Roca, M.N.O. (2007). Affirmation of Territorial Identity: A Development Policy

Issue. Land Use Policy, 24(2).

Rose, G. (1995). `Place and Identity: A Sense of Place,` in D. Massey and P. Jess (eds.) A Place

in the World? Places, Cultures and Globalisation. Milton Keynes: The Open University.

Santos, M. et al (ed.) (1994). Território, Globalização e Fragmentação. São Paulo: Editora

Hucitec

Todtling, F. (1994). `The Uneven Landscale of Innovation Poles: Local Embeddedness and

Global Networks,` in A. Amin and N. Thrift (eds.), Globalisation, Institutions and

Regional Development in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press / The Open

University.

Tuan, Y.F. (1990). Topophilia – A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values.

New York: Columbia University Press / Morningside Edition.




70

Conclusion

On March 1-3, 2011 the Regional Seminar for CIS countries ―Safeguarding World

Heritage in the Context of New Global Challenges‖ was held in Moscow. The Russian Research

Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev (the Heritage Institute)

organized this event with the support of the UNESCO Moscow Office for Armenia, Azerbaijan,

Belarus, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation.

The proposal to call an international seminar for CIS countries on the World Heritage

Sites management in the context of new global challenges was initially voiced at the conference

on the 20th

Anniversary of Russia‘s World Heritage Sites Inscription (17-19 November 2010,

Moscow Kremlin Cathedrals Museum-Reserve).

Overall theme of the seminar was the multidisciplinary research for safeguarding and

management of the World Heritage Sites in the context of new global challenges (such as climate

change, uncontrolled urbanization and tourism development). The main goal of the seminar was

to strengthen the regional scientific and informational potential for the implementation of the

UNESCO World Heritage Convention, for better management of the World Heritage Sites and

foresight activities against the new global challenges. The following scientific and pragmatic

tasks have been identified for discussion by the Programme Committee:

– data assessment on the World Heritage Sites preservation in the CIS countries;

– identification of priorities and resources for foresight activities in the sphere of

World Heritage Sites management and enhancement;

– promotion of cultural landscape as a key heritage site and its role in the sustainable

development in the East European region;

– promotion of regional exchange of good practices in the heritage preservation;

– networking for best practices introduction and broader regional cooperation.

To prepare implementation of these tasks under the seminar concept development there

has been elaborated a specific questionnaire and data and responses from the CIS delegations

have been collected. Based on this data analysis of the information available has been made and

relevant publication is included into the proceedings of the seminar.

Effective preparation of the seminar was also based on the use of Russian-language

translations for the baseline UNESCO documents prepared by the Heritage Institute and

published at its web-site www.heritage-institute.ru: World Heritage List (regularly updated since

2009), List of Intangible World Heritage (update of 2010). Additionally to all participants there

were disseminated the materials translated into Russian language from ―The Enhancing Our

Heritage Toolkit‖ brochure (UNESCO, 2008, 103 pp.) and the recent publications of the

scientific proceedings of the Heritage Institute - periodical in Russian ―Nasledie i sovremennost‖

(Heritage and Modernity, issues 15 and 17 printed in 2009 and 2011).

Number of registered participants of the seminar who took an active part in its plenary

and other sessions was over 70 persons; the audience totaling 100 persons attended various

seminar events. Main input to the seminar was ensured through the participation of the

delegations from the World Heritage Sites in Russia and the CIS countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan,

Belarus, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine), representatives of the relevant management bodies

(ministries and agencies), research and public organizations and academics and experts working

in the sphere of cultural and natural heritage conservation. Participating in the seminar were over

30 persons from Moscow, 20 experts from 11 countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,

Denmark, France, Latvia, Moldova, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine), over 20 participants

from different cities and regions in Russia (Arkhangelsk, Gorno-Altaisk, Irkutsk, Kazan,

Mozhaisk, Nizhny Novgorod, Petrozavodsk, St-Petersburg, Tula, Yaroslavl et al.), representing





71

the state bodies, scientific and educational institutions, public and non-governmental

organizations. Some of them have made presentations, and all took part in the discussions and

elaboration of the recommendations and proceedings of the seminar.

Russian Ministry for Culture and the State Duma Committee for Culture acted as co-

organizers of the regional seminar held in the Heritage Institute. The following relevant agencies

have delivered organizational and programme support: Scientific Council under the Presidium of

the Russian Academy of Sciences, Commission on Culture under the Council of Federation,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Regional Development

and Ministry of Science and Education. Participants from the educational institutions represented

the following universities: the Lomonosov Moscow State University, Yaroslavl State University,

the State University for Humanitarian Sciences, and Russian International Academy for Tourism,

a member of the UNITWIN network for sustainable tourism development. Key expert

presentations were delivered at the seminar by the representatives from the Russian Academy of

Sciences - Institute of Geography, Russian Research Institute of Art Science, Institute for

Historic Cities Reconstruction, Russian Geographic Society, and International Geographic

Union. It is to be appreciated that many of the public organizations and associations (Natural

Heritage Protection Fund, All-Russia Society for Protection of Historic and Cultural Monuments,

Moscow Society for Architectural Heritage Protection, Russian Estate Studies Society et al.)

provided opportunities for their own representatives to take part in the event and submitted

commentaries to the draft recommendations of the seminar.

Opening ceremony and main sessions of the seminar were held in the Heritage Institute

on the 1st and 2

nd March; the plenary meeting on March 3

rd took place in the Moscow State

Integrated Art and Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve which

supported seminar as a partner and co-organized the final seminar events.

Simultaneous translation service was organized by the Heritage Institute for the opening

and plenary sessions during the first day of seminar. The consecutive translation for foreign

experts from Russian into English was provided during seminar sessions on the 2nd

and 3rd

March. Translation into Russian of all preliminary seminar documentation and key expert

presentations were executed by invited qualified interpreters as well as by Heritage Institute staff

members. Thanks to the partners and the existing European and Russian expert network the

agenda of the seminar and its events were successfully organized.

In the seminar sessions there took part and made their presentations and commentaries

more than 40 participants. Welcoming speeches were delivered by the Director of UNESCO

Moscow Office for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian

Federation, Mr. Dendev Badarch, the RF Deputy Minister for Culture Mr. Andrey Busygin and

Chairman of the RF State Duma Committee for Culture Mr. Grigory Ivliev.

Key expertise and papers were presented by 15 specialists recommended by the national

commissions for UNESCO from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova, the

Russian Federation and the Ukraine.

Participants‘ attention concentrated on the topical issues, indicated as the first two

sessions of the plenary meeting of the seminar: New Global Challenges and their Impact on

World Heritage Preservation and Cultural Landscape as a Heritage Site.

The key lecture of the first session by the programme specialist from the World Heritage

Center Mr. Herve Barre presented the UNESCO Strategies and Programmes for heritage

preservation and sustainable tourism development in the context of new global challenges.

Describing the case studies and statistical data on the dramatic tourism development in the

world, he accentuated two major missions of the World Heritage Convention (1972) – a public

access to the site and heritage site conservation regime, that are in contradiction to each other. In




72

these conditions tourism as a tool for local or regional socio-economic development might cause

the detrimental damage to the heritage site or its surroundings.

The key expert presentation by the Deputy Director of the Historic Cities Reconstruction

Institute Dr. Vladimir Krogius considered urbanization process vs. heritage preservation in the

situation when accelerated land privatization generates low quality decision-making in the sphere

of regional and urban planning and management. Another expert, the Deputy Director of the

Institute of Geography under Russian Academy of Sciences, Prof. Arkady Tishkov spoke of the

climate change threatening heritage site preservation and/or existence. He distinguished three

fundamental threats at the global level: rise of the ocean level and global temperature and

abnormal fluctuations of precipitation. For mitigation of these threats there was proposed an

inventory of the risks, allocation of funding for adaptation measures, differentiated monitoring,

forecasting of the on-going transformations and related compensations and overall strategy and

action plan for heritage sites preservation.

Mr. Grigory Ivliev, the Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Culture, has delivered

the leading expert presentation in this session. In his paper he specifically outlined such global

challenges as private property enhancement and state property privatization, intensification of

the information flows and rapid economic development in the sphere of cultural policy and

legalization. Mr. Ivliev stressed in this connection that the updated Federal Law 73 ‖On cultural

heritage objects (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation‖

will ensure proper protection of the historic and cultural reserves thus effectively safeguarding

the registered World Cultural Heritage Sites in Russia.

At the session ―Cultural Landscape as a Heritage Site‖ two Russian experts made their

presentations: Dr. Vladimir Gritsenko, Director of the Kulikovo Battlefield Museum-reserve

(The Role of Museum-reserves in the Cultural Landscape Protection) and Dr. Marina Kuleshova,

Head of the Department on Legal Issues of the Cultural Landscape Management (Cultural

Landscapes in the World Heritage List). There should be specially noted interesting

presentations by invited international experts in the sphere of cultural landscape research.

Joint presentation by Prof. Jorgen Primdahl, from Copenhagen University, and Prof.

Simon Swaffield, from New Zealand Lincoln University, contained comparative analysis of the

global transformations of rural cultural landscape in various agricultural zones discovering main

driving forces along with the management challenges in the rapidly changing global economy

with due consideration of the multiple operational programs and research projects.

Another expert lecture on cultural identity and cultural landscape evolution was presented

by Prof. Zoran Roca from Lusofona University in Lisbon. In cooperation with his colleagues

professor extensively researched community participation in the social and economic

development of the rural regions in Portugal. On the support by the European Landscape

Convention to the cultural landscape management spoke Ms Pavlina Misikova, National

Coordinator of the European Landscape Convention, from the Slovakian Ministry of

Environment. All presenters at this session serve as international experts in the network of the

European Landscape Convention under the Council of Europe.

Next day of the seminar was dedicated to the practical issues of the World Heritage Site

management and monitoring. During interactive sessions the representatives of the CIS countries

delegations took the floor in the following order: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, the Republic of

Moldova, the Ukraine, and the Russian Federation. After the break there was organized a Round

Table discussion moderated by the researchers from the Lomonosov Moscow State University

and the Heritage Institute. Seminar discussions, accompanied by the heritage sites presentations,

displayed a variety of opinions and stimulated exchange of ideas, experience and research

outputs.




73

Plenary meeting on March 3, 2011 ―Comprehensive Impact Assessment Case Study‖ has

finalized the scientific program. Ms. Lyudmila Kolesnikova, Director General of the Moscow

State Integrated Art and Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve

hosted this last day of the seminar. She and her Ukrainian colleague Ms. Marina Gromova,

Director General of the National Kyev-Pechery Historical and Cultural Reserve in Kyev opened

session with the key lectures on the integrated management policy and solution of the monitoring

problems at the World Heritage Sites in the highly urbanized environment of the capital city.

Exchange of views that took place at the seminar allowed to attain both conceptual

understanding and get practical acquaintance with the international experience of the operational

development of the idea of the cultural landscape as a heritage site. Lectures delivered by the

invited international key experts and papers presented by well known scholars, specialists,

government agents and activists demonstrated high interest to the wide scope of problems and

their solutions by various research and policy-making institutions and organizations in the region

of the CIS countries.

Fundamental discussion of the World Heritage preservation and management in the

context of new global challenges resulted in finding necessary suggestions and solutions,

reflected in the adopted final document – the Seminar Recommendations. During the discussion

at the concluding plenary session, there were submitted many proposals on various issues and the

recommendations were preliminary adopted in the form of a draft document, elaborated by the

members of the Organizing Committee. The final version of the recommendations was approved

after substantial editing work based on comments and proposals received via communication

with the participants. In particular, final text of the recommendation mentions that World

Heritage Sites preservation policy shall be based on a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach

reflecting the integrity of cultural and natural heritage while fostering cultural and natural

diversity in all state parties of the World Heritage Convention. Subsequently, cultural landscape

as a heritage site shall play a key role in this policy and landscape approach shall secure the

integrity and interrelation of all heritage items with their environment. The operational tool for

heritage preservation along with the legal, organizational and engineering methods shall be

ensured through the comprehensive and scientifically sound integrated monitoring system – to

monitor the state of the heritage properties and sites including their cultural and natural

environments. The decision-making, based on this monitoring along with the essential foresight

activities shall minimize the impact of the destructive factors and processes. The outcomes of the

monitoring shall be part of the World Heritage Sites preservation and utilization process to

secure the development of their continuing adaptive management. Participants of the seminar

also proposed that for introduction of the cultural landscape approach into the heritage

preservation practice a number of actions shall take place including establishment of the

coordinating cultural landscape research center for the CIS countries on the basis of the Heritage

Institute.

This center might be organized for coordination of the research and development on

identification, promotion, preservation and management of the national and World Heritage sites

in the CIS countries and for improved implementation of the UNESCO Conventions –

―Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage‖ and ―Safeguarding of Intangible

Cultural Heritage‖. The Heritage Institute is already implementing some of the specific tasks of

such center in the Russian Federation - these are the conceptual and practical guidance and

advice, as well as scientific assessment of the projects on heritage and cultural landscape

preservation and management, coordination of the activities of the museum-reserves and spatial

heritage sites. In the information sphere it is very important to provide translations of the vital

conceptual documents and information newsletters by UNESCO into national languages. This




74

linguistic task is particularly relevant to the management plan developments and periodical

reports; establishment and promotion of the web pages for specific World Heritage sites;

development of a shared database at the Heritage Institute web-site for the international

directives and guidelines in the sphere of heritage identification, research, preservation and

operational management (including cultural and natural phenomena and sites, tangible and

intangible items and phenomena, architectural, archeological, submarine cultural heritage,

landscape and other sites); establishment of the regularly updated databank on national legal

documents relating to the World Heritage Sites in the CIS countries (strategies, programmes,

administration regulations, legal statutes, management plans etc.). Educational activities might

include the trainings and regular meetings in the CIS countries for research updates, sharing

outcomes and planning further research coordination and development on the basis of the model

World Heritage sites; elaboration of the management plans, monitoring and reporting, adaptive

management. Eventually there could be elaborated and launched joint interdisciplinary research

projects in the sphere of cultural landscape and spatial heritage sites preservation, including case

studies on the model cultural landscapes with the participation of the international experts;

revision and improvement of the nomination documents for the tentative lists; comprehensive

assessments and integrated analyses of various problems at the inscribed heritage sites with

participation of the international experts etc.

It is noteworthy to mention the other important proposals voiced by the seminar

participants or communicated during the elaboration of the recommendations: improvement of

the national legislation for the practical actions such as restoration and reconstruction (for

example, the tenders for state-funded projects in Russia are to be improved drastically to ensure

the highly professional level of project activities and implementation); the rehabilitation and

maintenance of the monuments and landscapes; proactive measures for conservation of the

universal outstanding values at the cultural and natural World Heritage sites; improvement of the

spatial planning procedures; elaboration and operational functioning of the management plans in

the protected lands; coordination of activities and collaboration of all stakeholders in the

protected zones and at the different administration levels; monitoring of the economic situation

and land- and resource use regimes; and finally, the continuous comprehensive research and

monitoring of the heritage sites with regular expert meetings and recommendations for relevant

follow up actions.

For efficient open discussion and news coverage the web page of the regional seminar for

CIS countries ―Safeguarding World Heritage in the Context of New Global Challenges‖ was

designed at the Heritage Institute web-site www.heritage-institute.ru where information update

was taking place on a continuous basis. Press-release on the seminar results and its

recommendations in English were published at the official UNESCO site http://www.unesco.org

in the section on regional events.

The electronic version of the seminar proceedings includes all papers and presentations

submitted by the seminar participants for publication; computer presentations are posted

according to the seminar programme, while individual author papers are published in the special

section in the alphabetical order.

With the support from the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation there was

organized a special cultural programme for seminar participants. It incorporated the opening

ceremony of the research exposition on Solovetsky Archipelago World Heritage Site entitled

―Solovki – a Miracle of the Russian North‖, concert of the Saucejas folk group (intangible

heritage of the folk music tradition in Latvia), the Vakhtangov Theatre drama performance, visits

to the museum exhibitions and restoration workshops and field excursion in the Kolomenskoe

Museum-Reserve (with the visit to the Ascension Church – the World Heritage Site).


http://www.unesco.org/




75

Seminar participants during the closing session and in their further e-mail comments on

the event organization expressed the hope that the regional seminar and its recommendations will

contribute to the mutual understanding between researchers and specialists with diverse social

and cultural views in the countries with the similar political and economic situations. In

conclusion we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the vital financial and organizational

support delivered by the UNESCO office in Moscow and the World Heritage Center in Paris.

Professor Yury Vedenin, Director of the Heritage Institute




76

Recommendations

70 participants from 12 countries took part in the Regional seminar for CIS countries

«Safeguarding World Heritage in the Context of New Global Challenges». It was organized and

conducted from 1 to 3 March, 2011 by the Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural

Heritage, named after Dmitry Likhachev, in partnership with the Kolomenskoe State Integrated

Art and Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve with the financial

support of the UNESCO Cluster Office in Moscow for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the

Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation.

The seminar was welcomed by Mr. Andrey Busygin, Deputy Minister of Culture of the

Russian Federation, Mr. Grigory Ivliev, Chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee on

Culture and Mr. Dendev Badarch, Director of the UNESCO Office in Moscow, UNESCO

Representative in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Republic of Moldova and the Russian

Federation.

The objectives of the Seminar included the identification and foresight of priorities for

activities in the sphere of World Heritage Sites management; the promotion of cultural landscape

as key heritage sites and its role in sustainable development; the encouragement of regional

exchange of good practices in the protection of Cultural and Natural World Heritage and

networking for introducing best practices and expanding research cooperation.

Following international and Regional CIS expert presentations and rich debates the

participants explored multidisciplinary research for the protection and management of the World

Heritage Sites in the context of new global challenges (such as climate change, uncontrolled

urbanization and unsustainable tourism development) in the following CIS countries – Armenia,

Azerbaijan, Belarus, Republic of Moldova, Russia and the Ukraine.

Preamble

Acknowledging both achievements and impediments in the implementation of the World

Heritage Convention,

Aiming to find an effective solution for the most imminent preservation problems of specific

Cultural and Natural World Heritage Sites (WHS), by including both comprehensive and

participatory decision-making,

Applying a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach thoroughly considering natural and man-

made impacts and the existing interrelation and interactions between cultural and natural sites,

Noting both common Site management problems and new global challenges threatening the

Outstanding Universal Values of the World Heritage,

Considering the rich experience of the international community, and the specific situation in

each State Party in the World Heritage Convention, in the field of national heritage preservation

and management,

The participants decided to make the following recommendations:

1. Strengthening Conceptual Foundations for the Protection of the World Heritage

Request that the stakeholders involved in heritage preservation at local, national and

international level:

1.1. Ensure that WHS preservation policy be based on a comprehensive

interdisciplinary approach reflecting the integrity of Cultural and Natural Heritage




77

while fostering cultural and natural diversity. Subsequently, cultural landscape as a

heritage site plays a key role in this policy and landscape approach secures the

integrity and interrelation of all heritage items with their environment.

1.2. Provide an operational tool for WHS preservation through comprehensive and

scientifically sound integrated monitoring system – to monitor the state of the

heritage properties and sites including both their cultural and natural environments

and through an operational decision-making to mitigate the negative impacts of

various destructive factors and processes. The outcomes of the monitoring shall be

part of the WHS preservation and utilization process to secure the development of

their continuing adaptive management.

1.3. Ensure that WHS preservation activities be founded on the research, findings and

implementation of the best available techniques and practices derived from the

international experience, while including the study, the adaptation and the

involvement of the concepts and principal approaches found in the baseline

documents published by the UNESCO World Heritage Center, ICOMOS, ICCROM

and IUCN.

2. Improving of the World Heritage Sites Management

Request that the governments, management bodies and authorities of the CIS countries:

2.1. Improve their respective legal system in harmonization with the management and

planning regulations for quality preservation of cultural and natural heritage sites,

including World Heritage Sites;

2.2. Increase the level of financial support for the World Heritage Sites, by

establishing relations with the various bodies such as the UNESCO Partnership

Program, and with potential funding agencies;

2.3. Ensure direct involvement of the local communities in the decision-making

process at the WHS, establish a creative dialogue with all stakeholders to optimize

the management system and prevent conflict situations;

2.4. Improve information support for the WHS based on new information technologies

(development of the WHS web-sites, printed newsletters etc.); provide translated

versions of management plans, periodic reporting and UNESCO mission reports in

national languages;

2.5. Stimulate public education and awareness on WHS; develop cultural tourism

activities and infrastructure in the buffer zones and/or outside the WHS borders

based on the UNESCO recommendations and WH Convention requirements.

3. Undertaking Foresight Activities in the Context of New Global Challenges

Request that the expert community, research organizations and national governments in

coordination with the UNESCO World Heritage Center:

3.1. Create an international expert group for joint research, elaboration of ideas,

conceptual and technological approaches and exchange of the relevant information;

3.2. Inventory risks and threats for the WHS generated by the climate change,

urbanization and tourist pressures;

3.3. Launch projects that forecast of the WHS state of conservation in the context of

new global challenges in order to ensure the proper prevention and mitigation

measures;




78

3.4. Develop a system of the preventive measures for WHS adaptation to rapid climate

change on the basis of innovative methods and new technologies;

3.5. Undertake the risk assessments of WHS key indicator in short-, medium- and

long-term perspective;

3.6. Elaborate national strategies and action plans for conservation, protection,

restoration and sustainable use, tourism in particular, of the cultural and natural

heritage sites in the CIS countries.

3.7. Support the elaboration of the new UNESCO recommendation concerning heritage

preservation and the sustainable development of tourism and promote its

dissemination and implementation in the CIS countries.

4. Introducing the Cultural Landscape Approach to the WHS Preservation

Request that the scientific community of the CIS countries, national governments and the

UNESCO World Heritage Center:

4.1. Facilitate joint cooperation and coordination of the efforts for research on cultural

landscape preservation and management and its role in spatial planning and

sustainable development;

4.2. Support the establishment of the coordinating research center for the CIS countries

on the basis of the Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage

named after Dmitry Likhachev;

4.3. Create a shared database in the sphere of cultural landscape research, preservation

and operational management;

4.4. Provide organizational and financial support for the regular meetings for compiling

research activities, sharing outcomes and planning further research coordination

and development;

4.5. Elaborate and launch joint interdisciplinary research projects in the sphere of

cultural landscape and spatial heritage sites preservation, including case studies on

the model cultural landscapes with the participation of the international experts;

4.6. Assist in World Heritage Center missions at the WHS to monitor cultural

landscapes and spatial heritage sites preservation;

4.7. Organize professional training on cultural landscape and spatial heritage sites

preservation and management with invitation of the international experts;

4.8. Support the elaboration of the new UNESCO Recommendations on the historic

urban landscape and the new Convention on conservation of landscapes and

promote their dissemination and implementation in the CIS countries.

The Participants would like to express gratitude to the Heritage Institute, the State

Integrated Museum-Reserve in Kolomenskoe, the UNESCO Moscow Office and the World

Heritage Center for organizational and financial support of the seminar and are confident that

the exchange of practical experience and research outcomes will strongly support safeguarding

national heritage and World Heritage Sites in the participating CIS states and will promote

scientific and practical cooperation in this sphere.




79

Press-release

The agenda of the Regional Seminar held in Moscow, Russian Federation, from 1 to 3

March, 2011 addressed the strengthening of the regional scientific and informational potential

for the implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972), better management

of the World Heritage Sites and foresight activities against new global challenges, such as

climate change, uncontrolled urbanization and unsustainable tourism development.

The leading experts on preservation, management and promotion of the World Heritage

sites from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation and

the Ukraine have participated in the event, as well as representatives of the European countries.

The participants (70 persons from 12 countries) succeeded in exchanging experience and

information and focused discussions on the existing problems encountered in the management of

cultural and natural heritage sites in the region.

As a result of the event, comparative assessment of the World Heritage Sites preservation

in the CIS countries is to be conducted, scientific and information support for the regional

cooperation network on heritage and cultural landscape preservation provided and expanded, and

institutional capacity building for regional cooperation strengthened. Comprehensive

documentation, including recommendations are being elaborated and will be provided to the

governing bodies for the subsequent reactions on cultural landscape and heritage management

and further implementation in the national system of the heritage protection.

This seminar has been organized by the UNESCO Office in Moscow in partnership with

the Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev

and the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation.




80

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Armenia

1. POGHOSYAN Vladimir

Acting Director, Agency for Historical

Environment Protection and Historical and

Cultural Museum-Reserves of the Ministry of

Culture of Republic of Armenia, Yerevan

[email protected]

2. SARGSYAN Armenak

Chief, Department of Cultural Heritage and

Traditional Crafts of the Ministry of Culture

of Republic of Armenia, Yerevan

[email protected]

3. SIMONYAN Hakob

Director, Scientific Research Centre of

Historical and Cultural Heritage of the

Ministry of Culture of Republic of Armenia

hakobsimonyan@yahoo.

com

Azerbaijan

4. GULIYEV Anar A.

Head, Scientific Researching and

International Relations Department,

Administration of State Historical-

Architectural Reserve ―Icherisheher‖ under

the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of

Azerbaijan

[email protected].

az

5. KHALILOV Mubariz

Director, Pyr Hussein Hanegu National

Reserve, Ministry of Culture and Tourism of

the Republic of Azerbaijan

bakuworldforum2011@

gmail.com

6. MAMMADOV Fazil

Senior Consultant, Planning, Restoration and

Assessment Division of the Cultural Heritage

Department of the Ministry of Culture and

Tourism of the Republic of Azerbaijan

[email protected]

Belarus

7. CHARNYAUSKI Igor

Head, Department on Historic and Cultural

Heritage Management and Restoration,

Ministry of Culture, Minsk

[email protected]

8. KLIMOV Sergey

Director, National Historic and Cultural

Nesvizh Reserve

[email protected]

9. STASHKEVICH Alla

Head, Department for Historic and Cultural

Heritage Management, Institute for Culture,

Minsk

[email protected]

Denmark

10. PRIMDAHL Jorgen

Professor, Centre for Forest & Landscape,

University of Copenhagen [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




mailto:[email protected].%20az

mailto:[email protected].%20az











81

Republic of Moldova

11. CIOCANU Sergius Chief, Department of Cultural Heritage,

Ministry of Culture RM, Chisinau [email protected]

12. POSTICA Georghe

Vice-Minister, Ministry of Culture, Chisinau [email protected]

13. TABAC Silviu

Vice-Director, Institute of Cultural Heritage,

Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Chisinau [email protected]

Portugal

14. ROCA Zoran

Professor, Territory, Culture and

Development Research Center, Lusófona

University, Lisbon

[email protected]

15. ROCA Maria de

Nazare

Professor, Research Center for Geography

and Regional Planning, Nova University,

Lisbon

[email protected]

Russian Federation

16. ANANICHEV Konstantin

Expert on European Landscape Convention,

Moscow District Architecture Agency,

Moscow

konstantin-

[email protected]

17. ANDREEVA Evgeniya

Chief, Department on Living Traditional

Culture, Heritage Institute, Moscow [email protected]

18. APANASIK Oleg

Director, Pribaikalsky National Park, Irkutsk [email protected]

19. AVERIYANOVA

Elvy

Director, Historic, Kizhi Architectural and

Ethnographic Museum-reserve, Petrozavodsk

[email protected]

20. BUSYGIN Andrey

Deputy Minister, Ministry of Culture of the

Russian Federation, Moscow

21. BUTORIN Aleksey

President, Natural Heritage Protection Fund,

Moscow [email protected]

22. CHIZHOV Mikhail Consultant, Intergovernmental Foundation for

Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Cooperation (IFESCCO), Moscow

23. DAKHINA Evgeniya

Senior Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,


24. DIANOVA Natalya

Deputy Director, Center for International

Programs and Projects, Russian International

Academy for Tourism, Moscow

[email protected]

25. DROZDOV Alexander Leading Researcher, Institute of Geography,

Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow [email protected]

26. DZHANDZHUROVA

Elena

Chair, Tourism Department, Institute of

Tourism and Hospitality (ITIG), Editor-in-

Chief, ―Modern Problems of Service and

[email protected]



















82

Tourism‖ Magazine, Moscow

27. GONCHAROVA

Nataliya

Advisor, Intergovernmental Foundation for

Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Cooperation (IFESCCO), Moscow

[email protected]

28. GORBUNOV Alexander Deputy Director on Research, Borodino

Battlefield State War and History Museum-

reserve, Kaluga district

[email protected]

29. GORBYLEVA Elena

Chief Specialist, Department of Development,

―Yasnya Polyana‖ Museum Reserve, village

of Yasnya Polyana

[email protected]

30. GRITSENKO Vladimir

Director, Kulikov Battlefield Museum

Reserve [email protected]

31. IVLIEV Grigory

Chair, Russian Federation State Duma

Committee on Cultural Affairs, Moscow [email protected]

32. KALMYKOV Igor

Director, Altaisky State Natural Biosphere

Reserve, Gorno-Altaisk [email protected]

33. KALUTSKOV Vladimir

Leading Research Fellow, Department of

Physical Geography and Landscape Science,

Lomonosov Moscow State University,

Moscow

[email protected]

34. KHAKIMOV Rafail

Institute of History named after S.Mardzhani,

Tatarstan Academy of Sciences, Kazan [email protected]

35. KHRUSTALEVA

Marina

Chair of the Board, Moscow Architecture

Preservation Society, Moscow

[email protected]

36. KOLBOWSKY

Eugene

Chair of the Geography Department,

Yaroslavl State Univeristy, Yaroslavl

[email protected]

37. KOLESNIKOVA

Lyudmila

Director General, The Moscow State

Integrated Art and Historical, Architectural

and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve

[email protected]

38. KOLOSSOV Vladimir

Vice-President, International Geographical

Union, Moscow [email protected]

m

39. KRAVCHINA Lyubov

Chief, Department of Development, ―Yasnaya

Polyana‖ Museum-Reserve, village of

Yasnaya Polyana

[email protected]

40. KROGIUS Vladimir

Director, Institute for Historical Cities

Reconstruction (INRECON), Moscow [email protected]

41. KULESHOVA Marina

Chief, Department of Cultural Landscape

Management, Heritage Institute, Moscow

[email protected]

42. LAGUSEVA Nadezhda

Deputy Head of the UNESCO Chair, Russian

International Academy of Tourism, Moscow

[email protected]





















83

43. LAPTEVA Galina

Expert, Regional Inspection for Monitoring of

the Historic and Cultural Monuments

Preservation, Arkhangelsk

lapteva@dvinaland@ru

44. LYUBIMTSEV

Aleksandr

Chief Guardian of the Immobile Monuments,

«Kizhi» Historic, Architectural and

Ethnographic Museum-reserve, Petrozavodsk

[email protected]

45. MAKOVETSKY Igor

President, Russian National Committee for

World Cultural and Natural Heritage,

Moscow

[email protected]

46. MAKSAKOVSKY

Nikolay

Chief, Department for Unique Natural Areas,

Heritage Institute, Moscow [email protected]

47. MIKHAILOVA Ksenia Project Coordinator, Natural Heritage

Protection Fund, Moscow [email protected]

48. NERONOV Valery

Vice-President, UNESCO ―Man and the

Biosphere‖ (MAB) International

Coordinating Committee; Deputy Chair,

Russian Committee on MAB Program,

Moscow

[email protected]

49. NEZVITSKAYA Tatyana

Deputy Director, Department on Historic and

Natural Heritage Preservation, «Kizhi»

Historic, Architectural and Ethnographic

Museum-reserve, Petrozavodsk

[email protected]

50. ORDZHONIKIDZE

Grigory

Executive Secretary, Commission of the

Russian Federation for UNESCO, Moscow [email protected]

51. PETROVA Tatyana

Deputy Head of the Department, Ministry for

Natural Resources, Moscow [email protected]

52. PROVOROVA Irina Leading Researcher, Heritage Institute,


53. PUTRIK Yury

Chair of the Tourism Department, Moscow

Humanitarian University, Moscow

54. RODOMAN

Boris

Leading Researcher, Heritage Institute under

RF Ministry for Culture, Moscow

[email protected]

55. SEMENOVA Tamara Senior Researcher, Heritage Institute,

Moscow

[email protected]

56. SHULGIN Pavel

Deputy Director, Heritage Institute, Ministry

of Culture, Moscow [email protected]

57. STOLYAROV

Vyacheslav

Aide to Vicar for Heritage Preservation,

Saviour Transfiguration Solovetsky

Monastery, Moscow

[email protected]

58. TISHKOV Arkady

Deputy Director, Institute of Geography

under Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow

[email protected]

59. TSIPRIS Inga Researcher, Moscow Union of Architects,

Moscow

mailto:lapteva@dvinaland@ru


















84

60. TURCHIN Taras

Deputy Director, Mikhail Sholokhov Estate

(Vyoshenskoe) Museum Reserve,

Vyoshenskoe settlement

[email protected]

61. VEDENIN Yury

Director, Heritage Institute under RF Ministry

of Culture, Moscow [email protected]

62. ZAVYALOVA Nadezhda

Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Institute,


63. YEREMEEV Alexander Deputy Director, Heritage Institute under

RFMinistry of Culture, Moscow [email protected]

Slovakia

64. MISIKOVA Pavlina

National Coordinator for the European

Landscape Convention, Ministry of

Environment, Bratislava

[email protected]

ov.sk

Ukraine

65. BOBROVSKY Timur

Deputy Director, Research Institute for

Monument Preservation, Kyev [email protected]

66. BUYUKLI Maria

Chief, Department of International

Cooperation and Protocol, National Kyev-

Pechery Historic and Cultural Reserve

[email protected]

67. GROMOVA Marina

Director General, National Kyev-Pechery

Historic and Cultural Reserve

[email protected]

68. SERDYUK Elena Director, Research Institute for Monument

Preservation, Kyev [email protected]

UNESCO

69. BADARCH Dendev

Director, UNESCO Office in Moscow,

UNESCO Representative in Armenia,

Azerbaijan, Belarus, Republic of Moldova

and the Russian Federation, Moscow

[email protected]

70. BARRE Herve

Programme Specialist on Sustainable

Tourism, World Heritage Center, Paris,

UNESCO

[email protected]

71. MOREVA Liubava

Program Specialist for Culture, UNESCO

Office in Moscow for Armenia, Azerbaijan,

Belarus, Republic of Moldova and the

Russian Federation, Moscow

[email protected]

















85

Acknowledgements

The Regional Seminar for CIS countries ―Safeguarding World Heritage in the Context of

New Global Challenges‖ has been organized by the Russian Research Institute for Cultural and

Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev with the support of the UNESCO Moscow

Office for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation.

We express our deep gratitude for the comprehensive consultative support delivered by the staff

of this organization.

We also would like to specially note the co-organizers of the seminar and express our

personal thanks to the Deputy Minister on Culture Mr. Andrey Busygin and to the Chair of the

State Duma Committee on Culture Mr. Grigory Ivliev.

We highly acknowledge vital assistance of our major partner - the Moscow State

Integrated Art and Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve led by its

Director General Ms. Lyudmila Kolesnikova, and cordially thank her staff persons at the

Kolomenskoe Museum-reserve Ms. Marina Lyapina, Ms. Olga Polyakova, Ms. Svetlana

Burtseva and Mr. Sergey Slobodyan.

Most important multifunctional support of the event was delivered by the Heritage

Institute staff members – Mr. Petr Aleinikov, Ms. Evgeniya Andreeva, Ms. Irina Bylchenko,

Ms. Olga Vasilyeva, Ms. Elena Vorobieva, Mr. Alexander Eremeev, Ms. Marina Kuleshova,

Mr. Nikolay Maksakovsky, Ms. Elena Nedbalskaya, Ms. Nina Orlova, Ms. Irina Provorova,

Mr. Dmitry Solodky, Mr. Sergey Sokolsky, Mr. Vyacheslav Stolyarov and Ms. Margarita

Schmeleva.

We and all seminar participants cordially thank the Saucejas ensemble from Latvia for

the unforgettable musical performance.

Finally we would like to express our deep gratitude to the employees from various

agencies and organizations – we thank Mr. Herve Barre, Ms. Liubava Moreva, Mr. Konstantin

Ananichev, Ms.Svetlana Ryzhakova, Mr. Pavel Illarionov, Mr. Sergey Kulikov, Mr. Mikhail

Moiseev and Ms. Galina Platova for their good cooperation and support of the seminar events.




86

Attachment 1

Questionnaire for the participants

1. Describe the structure (authorized ministries and agencies) and effectiveness of the

World Heritage Sites management in your country.

2. What kind of global challenges (climate change, urbanization and tourism

development) have a major impact on the World Heritage Sites? Please mention

specific cases in your country, if any.

3. Identify other factors and threats to the universal values of the heritage sites

(legislation, management, funding, public ignorance etc.). Comment on the specific

problems, please.

4. State-of-art for monitoring of the World Heritage Sites in your country - describe the

major problems in this sphere.

5. Cultural landscapes – what is their role in the national heritage preservation and in the

specific World Heritage Sites?

6. Assess the quality of World Heritage Sites preservation in your country (including

support for uniqueness criteria).

7. Balance between the ‗development‘ and ‗preservation‘ in practice – please provide

examples of positive and negative effects, if possible.

Documents

The Regional Seminar for CIS countries - UNESCO€¦ · Proceedings of the Regional Seminar for CIS countries “Safeguarding World Heritage in the Context of New Global Challenges”