World Heritage reports 12whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_12_en.pdfPublished in 2004 by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre with financial contribution from the Japan Funds-in-Trust

For more information contact:UNESCO World Heritage Centre

7, place de Fontenoy75352 Paris 07 SP FranceTel : 33 (0)1 45 68 18 76Fax : 33 (0)1 45 68 55 70E-mail : [email protected]://whc.unesco.org

12

The

Stat

e of

Wor

ld H

erit

age

in t

he A

sia-

Paci

fic R

egio

n 20

03

Cov

er p

rint

ed o

n ch

lori

ne f

ree

pape

r;in

teri

or p

rint

ed o

n re

cycl

ed p

aper

Des

ign

by R

ecto

Vers

o

2C

over

pho

to:M

ount

ain

Res

oal a

nd it

s te

mpl

es,Y

anyu

Tow

er (

Res

oal,

Chi

na)

© U

NES

CO

.

World Heritage reports

The State of World Heritagein the Asia-Pacific Region2003

World Her i tage reports

Wo

rld

Heri

tag

epa

pers

WH_AsiaPacific12_cover 18/11/04 14:03 Page 1


Disclaimer

The authors are responsible for the choice and presentation of the facts contained in this publication and for the opinionstherein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit the Organization.

The designations employed and the presentation of the material throughout this publication do not imply the expressionof any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or ofits authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

All pictures, maps and drawings contained in this Report have been either provided by UNESCO or by the States Parties’authorities at the nomination stage of their World Heritage properties, or specifically for the purposes of the PeriodicReporting exercise. All rights are reserved on these images.

Reproduction is authorised, providing that appropriate mention is made of the source, and copies are sent to the UNESCO(Paris) address below.

Published in 2004 by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre with financial contributionfrom the Japan Funds-in-Trust


3

The 1972 UNESCO Convention concerning the Protection of the WorldCultural and Natural Heritage was established to safeguard cultural andnatural heritage of outstanding universal value for future generations. Tosucceed in this goal, it is vital that the people of each nation are aware notonly of their own particular heritage but also of the tremendous wealthand diversity of our World Heritage - from the Pyramids of Egypt to theGalapagos Islands in Ecuador, from the Acropolis in Greece to the RiceTerraces of the Philippine Cordilleras.

The 177 countries that have signed the World Heritage Convention haveembarked on an ongoing mission to safeguard our world’s heritage. Theyhave become part of a network of countries dedicated to the internationalprotection of World Heritage properties, and hold a common belief that it

is our shared responsibility to preserve our cultural and natural resources. In the more than thirty yearsthat have passed since its adoption by the UNESCO General Conference, the World Heritage Conventionhas become the leading international legal instrument for the protection of our world’s cultural and nat-ural heritage.

The World Heritage Committee, at its twenty-second session held in December 1998, launched PeriodicReporting in all regions of the world, in accordance with the 1997 Resolution of the twenty-ninth UNESCOGeneral Conference. Periodic Reporting is intended to increase awareness about the World HeritageConvention within the largest audience possible, and to assess the application of the Convention by theStates Parties, as well as the state of conservation of their cultural and natural properties inscribed on theWorld Heritage List.

With the publication of The State of World Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region, including a CD-Rom containing the summaries of the national Periodic Reports of Asia-Pacific States Parties, we now have animportant reference tool to further develop regional co-operation for World Heritage conservation andfor the exchange of information and experiences between States Parties concerning the implementationof the Convention.

The purpose of this publication is to present the reader with a panorama of the application of the WorldHeritage Convention by the States Parties, and of the state of conservation of the World Heritage proper-ties inscribed on the World Heritage List up to and including 1994 (the cut-off date decided by the WorldHeritage Committee for the first phase of the Periodic Reporting process). Its aim is also to provide all thoseinvolved in the identification and conservation of World Heritage properties – whether site managers, localauthorities or civil society – with adequate tools to manage, protect and present their properties.

The cultural and natural heritage of the Asia-Pacific Region has proudly survived the effects of climate,the ravages of conflict, and other challenges to its conservation. Many threats and risks have been iden-tified and addressed, as a result of the combined efforts of the international community, not least those

Preface

…

4

of UNESCO itself, and of national governments and other agencies. However, much remains to be done,and follow-up activities are being identified by the World Heritage Centre and the States Parties, in accor-dance with the recommendations and conclusions of the Periodic Report for the Asia-Pacific Region.

Recognising the importance of this publication, I take the opportunity to express my appreciation to allthe Asia-Pacific States Parties and World Heritage site managers and the Advisory Bodies to the WorldHeritage Committee (ICOMOS, IUCN, and ICCROM), all of whose active support has helped to make thispublication possible. I wish to thank the many national focal points, site managers and heritage specialistsacross the region, as well as the United Nations Foundation and the Governments of Italy and Japan fortheir financial support channelled through the UNESCO Funds-in-Trust co-operation mechanism.

I hope that this publication will enrich your knowledge of the outstanding World Heritage of the Asia-Pacific Region. More importantly, I hope that it will also be a reminder of our shared duties and responsi-bilities towards the preservation of the outstanding universal value of our World Heritage.

Koïchiro Matsuura Director General of UNESCO

…

5

Since its adoption in November 1972 by the UNESCO General Conference,the World Heritage Convention, with 177 States Parties, has become themost universal international legal instrument in the field of heritage conservation. For more than three decades, countries all over the worldhave been working in a spirit of international co-operation towards theidentification, protection and presentation of cultural and natural heritageof “outstanding universal value”. There are currently 754 properties in 129countries that have been inscribed on the prestigious World Heritage List,including 582 cultural, 149 natural and 23 mixed properties.

Unfortunately, as those who are responsible for the care of the heritageknow all too well, the state of conservation of our heritage properties is notalways satisfactory. Environmental degradation, pollution, infrastructuraldevelopment and other threats to the biosphere continue to affect the state

of conservation of our World Heritage. In addition, the massive development of tourism is pushing thecarrying-capacity of the properties to the edge of their limits.

When listening to site managers, one is not surprised to find out that some of the threats to the conser-vation of World Heritage properties are due to inadequate legislative and administrative provisions, orlack of comprehensive management and/or monitoring mechanisms. These threats to our heritage areprecisely the reason why the World Heritage Convention was adopted in the first place, and why it hasgrown to become the world’s most popular legal instrument for the protection of both the natural andcultural heritage of humankind.

The drafters of the Convention considered that inscription of properties on a World Heritage List was onlythe beginning of a process of education, preservation and presentation, a process which leads to sus-tainable conservation of the properties, and which requires continual monitoring. This is the task lyingbefore us now. How can we assess the state of conservation of our cultural and natural heritage proper-ties? How can a State Party improve its implementation of the Convention by developing a national policy that aims to secure the effective protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage?

In December 1998, the 21-member intergovernmental World Heritage Committee invited the StatesParties to submit Periodic Reports in accordance with the Format adopted at its twenty-second session.The Periodic Report for the Asia-Pacific Region was thereafter carried out between 1999 and 2003, whenthe Committee examined and adopted the “Synthesis Regional Periodic Report for the Asia-Pacific Region2003” at its 27th session in July 2003.

It is clear from the national Periodic Reports submitted by the Asia-Pacific States Parties that WorldHeritage properties are facing increasing conservation challenges. Some of the common threats and risks

Foreword

…

6

identified through the preparation of the Periodic Report for this region include: development and population pressures; urban expansion and agricultural development; uncontrolled tourism; vandalism,theft and destruction of heritage; natural disasters; military and armed conflicts. Population growth is amajor trend in many Asian countries, often resulting in mass migration and rising demands for naturalresources. Atmospheric pollution, intrusive commercial development and insensitive public and privateconstruction works are some of the other threats facing World Heritage properties in Asia, which oftenlead to destruction or alteration of the heritage value of these properties. With regard to the Pacific,global climate change is a particular threat with some island countries facing significant sea level rise inthe decades to come.

Although the challenges to World Heritage conservation are hugely varied, one point in common is thevital importance of the “human factor”. Therefore, conservation policies and activities must be integratedinto and compatible with national and local socio-economic development programmes.

The increasing number and scale of threats to World Heritage properties around the world is also reflectedin the expanding List of World Heritage in Danger, currently including 35 properties. This unfortunate situation calls for increased efforts by all of us to preserve humankind’s cultural heritage for future generations as an indispensable source of identity and creativity, and to safeguard our natural heritageon which life itself depends.

The production of this publication on The State of World Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region will be beneficial to the national authorities as well as to the site management authorities. It is summarised andanalysed in such a way to encourage the general public to become involved in the conservation and promotion of the World’s Heritage. It is hoped that this publication will give further encouragement toAsia-Pacific States Parties to identify and protect World Heritage properties in the region. I take theopportunity to convey my sincere gratitude to all those who have contributed with their intellectual creativity and financial support to make the publication possible.

As Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, I would like to congratulate UNESCO, and in particularits World Heritage Centre, on this publication. I am sure that this publication will inspire national expertsand site managers across the region and those around the world to continue their active contribution inthe conservation and preservation of the World Heritage of the Asia-Pacific region.

Zhang Xinsheng Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee

…

7

Introduction

BackgroundThe preparation of Periodic Reports on the implementation of the WorldHeritage Convention and the state of conservation of properties inscribed onthe World Heritage List results from Resolutions adopted by the 11th GeneralAssembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, and the 29thGeneral Conference of UNESCO held in 1997. Upon request of the GeneralAssembly of States Parties to the World Heritage Convention, the WorldHeritage Committee at its 22nd session in 1998, defined the periodicity, form,nature and extent of the Periodic Reporting on the application of the WorldHeritage Convention and on the state of conservation of World Heritageproperties. The Committee invited the States Parties to submit their nationalPeriodic Reports in accordance with Article 29 of the Convention.

In December 2000 at its 24th session, the World Heritage Committee approved an action plan for thepreparation of the Asia-Pacific Regional Periodic Report. A number of the 39 States Parties (27 Asian & 12Pacific) and the World Heritage Centre had already begun preparation of the Periodic Reports in 1997, andthis preparation work was increased from 2001. Of the 39 States Parties, 16 States Parties with propertiesinscribed on the World Heritage List before or in 1994 were requested to prepare state of conservationreports for a total of 88 properties (55 cultural and 33 natural or mixed properties).

The majority of Asia-Pacific States Parties appointed National focal points for the preparation of theirPeriodic Reports in 2001 upon the request of the World Heritage Centre. To facilitate the work of the nationalauthorities, a questionnaire was developed by the Centre, in consultation with the Advisory Bodies (ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM) based on the Periodic Reporting Format adopted by the Committee, whichincludes two sections. Section I focuses on the legislative and administrative action taken by the StatesParties in the application of the World Heritage Convention. Section II reports in detail on the state of conservation of individual World Heritage properties inscribed on the World Heritage List before or in 1994.

International Assistance from the World Heritage Fund was provided to support some States Parties inpreparing their National Periodic Reports. The Government of Japan generously granted US$ 334,800 underthe UNESCO Japan-Funds-in-Trust programme to support seven Asian States Parties (China, India, Indonesia,Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka & Vietnam) to enhance the monitoring of World Cultural Heritage propertiescovered under this Periodic Reporting exercise. The United Nations Foundation, through its programme‘Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage sites’, also provided funding for Nepal andIndia, within the framework of the Asia-Pacific Periodic Reporting exercise. With the support of the UNESCOItalian Funds-in-Trust, States Parties from the Pacific were assisted in the preparation of their PeriodicReports at a capacity-building workshop held in Apia, Samoa, in February 2003.

MethodologyAt an early stage in the preparation of the regional Periodic Report, the World Heritage Centre and theStates Parties adopted a consultative approach, not only to facilitate the process of preparing the Report,but to ensure that the Final Report became a useful tool for the States Parties concerned, the WorldHeritage Committee and UNESCO, in prioritizing actions based on identified sub-regional needs. TheAdvisory Bodies (ICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN) were invited to participate throughout the exercise to ben-efit from their experience and knowledge of World Heritage conservation. …

8

…

One significant challenge in the preparation of the national Periodic Reports was to collect base-lineinformation on specific properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. Many of the properties inscribedon the World Heritage List before or in 1994 were nominated without clear demarcation of their bound-aries. Other information which required reformulation or review for many of the properties inscribed onthe World Heritage List before or in 1994 were the statements of significance, threats, legislation andmanagement mechanisms described in the original nomination files.

Numerous national, regional and international consultative meetings were organised to share informa-tion and to encourage active participation on the part of the States Parties, with support from the WorldHeritage Fund or other extra-budgetary funds:Sub-regional and/or regional meetings for cultural, natural and mixed heritage include Tana Toraja(Indonesia) in April 2001; Gyeongju (Republic of Korea) in July 2001; Greater Blue Mountains (Australia) inMarch 2002; Almaty (Kazakhstan) in December 2002; Hanoi (Vietnam) in January 2003; Apia (Samoa) inFebruary 2003; and Paris (France) in March 2003.National consultation meetings were held in Australia (March 2002), China (July 2002), India (November2002), and Sri Lanka (November/December 2002).Information meetings were organised for Asia-Pacific States Parties Permanent Delegations to UNESCO inOctober 2001, January and June 2003.

No Pacific Island countries were invited to the regional consultation meetings and no National PeriodicReports were received from the 10 Pacific Island Countries (excluding Australia and New Zealand) by thedeadline of 31 December 2002. Therefore the organisation of a capacity-building workshop in Apia,Samoa in February 2003, with the support from the UNESCO Italian Funds-in-Trust, was used as an oppor-tunity to encourage the Pacific Island States Parties to prepare reports. Subsequently, the majority ofthese States Parties have provided national Periodic Reports although the majority only joined theConvention in recent years.

As this was the first Periodic Report prepared for the Asia-Pacific Region, the States Parties, UNESCO, theAdvisory Bodies and all partners involved used it as an opportunity to strengthen co-operation for WorldHeritage conservation. Lessons have been learned which can be used in the next cycle of PeriodicReporting and for other regions.

StructureIn accordance with the decision of the 27th session of the World Heritage Committee, the structure of thispublication is divided into two parts. The paper publication (first part) provides an analytical and syntheticoverview of the mains issues raised by the National Periodic Reports. The conclusion presents the twoRegional Follow-up Programmes to the Periodic Report adopted by the Committee in 2003.

The CD-Rom (second part) provides a summarised version of Section I of the Regional Periodic Report,dealing with the application of the World Heritage Convention by Asia-Pacific States Parties, whileSection II focuses on the state of conservation of the cultural, natural and mixed properties inscribed onthe World Heritage List before or in 1994.

Francesco BandarinDirector of the World Heritage Centre

9

Acknowledgements

This publication aims to provide an overall view of the result of the first cycle of Periodic Reporting for theAsia-Pacific Region, as examined by the World Heritage Committee at its 27th session (Paris, 30 June – 5 July 2003).

Our thanks go to the States Parties of the Asia-Pacific Region, particularly the site managers and NationalFocal Points of the Periodic Reporting Exercise. We wish to thank our colleagues of the World HeritageCentre and other UNESCO Units for their precious comments and contributions. We would also like to thankthe Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee, ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM, for their invaluable contribution towards this exercise in the region.

The preparation of this paper was co-ordinated by Mr Feng Jing, Programme Specialist of the Asia-PacificUnit of the World Heritage Centre, with the assistance of Ms Aurélie Valtat and the late Mr Peter Laws,Consultant Editors for Cultural Heritage, Dr Terence Hay-Edie, Consultant Editor for Natural Heritage, Mr Salamat Ali Tabbasum, Mr Marc Faux, Mr Art Pedersen and Dr Marc Hockings.

The World Heritage Centre also wishes to express its gratitude to the UNESCO/Japan Funds-in-Trust Co-operation for the financial contribution to the publication of this document.

Page 90

Page 93

Page 96

Page 99

Page 101

Page 126

Table of ContentsPage 3

Page 5

Page 7

Page 9

Page 13

Page 23

Page 33

Page 43

Page 55

Page 67

Page 77

Page 85

Preface by Koïchiro Matsuura

Foreword by Zhang Xinsheng

Introduction by Francesco Bandarin

Acknowledgements

Global Strategy issues in the Asia-Pacific Region

Identification and Preservation of World Heritage Values

Heritage Legislation

Threats and Risks to World Heritage Properties

Management and Monitoring Challenges

Education, Information and New Technologies

Resources and Partnerships for Conservation

Conclusions

Annexes

Annex 1: List of Asia-Pacific World Heritage Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List before or in 1994

Annex 2: Basic Facts about Asia-Pacific States

Annex 3: “ActionAsia 2003-2009” Programme

Annex 4: “World Heritage – Pacific 2009” Programme

Annex 5: Sub-regional and Regional Recommendations on the Asia-Pacific Periodic Reporting Exercise

Annex 6: List of acronyms

3

2

4

5

6

7

8

Global Strategy issues in theAsia-Pacific Region

13

Tubbataha Reef Marine Park, Philippines

© UNESCO

From the spectacular Himalaya Mountains with theworld’s highest summit, to the deserts of CentralAsia, the tropical jungles of South East Asia, the rain-forest and arid plains of Australia, to the small islandarchipelagos of the Pacific, the Asia-Pacific regionencompasses a diverse array of climatic zones,topography, ecosystems and cultures. Representingabout a third of the land-mass of the world and avast expanse of the Pacific Ocean and its atolls andislands, the geological origins of the region dateback to the break-up of the super-continent ofGondwanaland (with relics in Australia, NewZealand and New Caledonia) and the northward

movement of the Indian subcontinent which latercollided with the rest of Asia. Continental Asia, in itsconfiguration today, is thus the result of hundreds ofmillions of years of tectonic shifts and exchange withthe Pacific. In more recent ecological terms, the bio-logical wealth of the region has sustained and co-evolved with human activity for many thousandsof years.

The ethnic and linguistic diversity of the region is immense,having emerged from separate regional centres that haveshared influences over centuries of migrations, tradingroute activity and wars. The peoples of the region haverefined many different patterns of land use and adaptivetechnologies reinforced by diverse religious and secularpractices, rites and customary systems. The Asia-Pacificregion was the first to construct canals and set up irriga-tion schemes; it was among the first to build plannedcities, and domesticate plants and animals. Many of thesehunter-gatherer groups, agricultural and industrial soci-eties have left behind physical testimonies and technolog-ical developments to recount the “World Heritage story”of the Asia-Pacific Region.

Inhabited today by some 3.75 billion people (around 60%of the world’s population), the 42 States of the regionnumber 39 signatories to the World Heritage Convention(Brunei, East Timor & Singapore have not ratified). TheStates Parties range from the most populous in the world,with 1.28 billion in China, 1.05 billion in India, 133 million

in Bangladesh, to only 5.17 million in Papua New Guineaand 96,000 in Kiribati.1

A massive disparity also exists in land area. China repre-sents some 9,596,960 sq km, whereas Bhutan, a recentsignatory to the World Heritage Convention, covers a mere47,000 sq km. The size and extent of individual WorldHeritage areas can also vary widely, ranging from the GreatBarrier Reef in Australia (34.87 million ha), to the Ha LongBay in Vietnam (150,000 ha).

A few countries of the Asia-Pacific Region are amongst the wealthiest in the world, while many others are among the least developed. In 2002, Japan and Australia bothenjoyed average GDP per capita well over US$25,000,whilst the comparable figure stood at US$5,200 in Fiji,US$3,000 in Indonesia, US$1,750 in Bangladesh andNepal, and barely US$1,140 in Tajikistan. Life expectancyat birth is as high as 78 years in New Zealand, comparedto only 53.5 years in Laos. Adult literacy in the Republic of Korea stands at 98%, while only 35% of adults inCambodia can read and write today.

During the 30 years since the adoption of the WorldHeritage Convention, the Asia-Pacific region has seenperiods of spectacular economic growth and the emer-gence of forward-looking economies along the PacificRim. There have also been major economic reverses,caused by both market crashes and natural disasters(drought, earthquakes and floods). In addition, politicalchanges in the States of the Indochinese peninsula afterdecades of war, the break-up of the former Soviet Unionin Central Asia, post-colonial conflicts in East Timor, recentpolitical and social unrest in Fiji and the Solomon Islands,and international isolation of certain states have made theAsia-Pacific region a very different place now than what itwas in 1972.

An over-arching trend common to many Asian countriesincludes population increase, a rising demand for naturalresources, and an accelerated migration of rural commu-nities to towns and cities. The root causes of this migrationare not difficult to find. Beyond the attraction of cities foryoung people, rural communities often face falling marketprices for agricultural commodities, limited educationalopportunities, and a lack of investment in provincial zones,driving millions to relocate in urban areas. In reality, how-ever, economic migrants often exchange hardship in thecountryside for poverty in urban shantytowns. Many ofthese demographic and economic challenges have eitherdirect or indirect impacts on World Heritage properties inthe region.

In the case of natural heritage, threats to the physicalintegrity of many properties come from human-inducedpressures and natural processes. Deforestation and poach-ing pressures, in particular, result from an immediate

14

Global Strategy Issues in the Asia-Pacific Region

© U

NES

CO

/ G

.Vic

as

SagarmathaNational Park,Nepal

1. See Annex 2 for a Factsheet on the five Asia-Pacific Sub-regions.

dependence on natural resources for rural livelihoods. Asemphasised by the Australian Natural Heritage Charter in1996, human modification of the biosphere often con-tributes to the occurrence of extreme catastrophic events.Global climate change in this way represents a very realthreat in the short-term and an immediate threat of com-plete disappearance for some Pacific Island countries.Other ongoing ecosystem processes such as erosion andsiltation, or invasive pests, plants and micro-organisms,may also have been disturbed or accelerated. Fires, eithercaused by humans or induced by natural events, constitutea direct risk to many sites. In the case of wetlands, com-petition for scarce water resources and chemical pollutionfrom agricultural run-off are often present.

In many cultural heritage properties, especially in thebuffer zones of historic cities, development pressures bothdirectly and indirectly affect the capacity of authorities toact in harmony with the spirit of the Convention. In addi-tion to the direct threats of illegal encroachment, theft,and vandalism common to many sites, atmospheric pollu-tion, intrusive commercial development, and insensitiveprivate and public construction works compound themany management challenges facing site managers.Disappointingly, too many examples persist of well-intended public works which have inadvertently destroyedor altered the heritage value of natural and cultural sites inthe region.

The critical issues are different in the Pacific, with a netdecline in population of some States Parties (Niue), seriousand imminent threats from climate change and associatedsea level rise and the overwhelming remoteness of thesub-region limiting the delivery of training, informationsharing and awareness of the sub-region by the rest of theworld, despite its extraordinary cultural and biologicaldiversity. It is believed that the Pacific has more endan-gered and threatened species per capita than anywhereelse on earth. The region’s marine environment comprisesan enormous and largely unexplored resource, includingthe most extensive and diverse reefs in the world, thelargest tuna fishery, the deepest oceanic trenches and thehealthiest remaining populations of many globally threat-ened species, including whales, sea turtles, and sea water

crocodiles. Its high islands support large tracts of rainfor-est with many unique rare species that are at risk.

Since its inception, the World Heritage Convention hasserved as a highly effective tool to stimulate conservation,as well as an impetus for development in many parts of theworld. One of the main driving forces behind the currentboom in heritage promotion has been a steady increase inworld tourism, including ecotourism, as the fastest grow-ing sub-sector. However, as many of the national periodicreports testify, tourism is a powerful force, which must beharnessed and managed in order to safeguard the authen-ticity and integrity of the properties of outstanding universalvalue inscribed on the World Heritage List. Both thenational reports and lively encounters with numerous heritage administrators during this first cycle of PeriodicReporting confirm the deep appreciation and contempo-rary significance of the concept of World Heritage in theAsia-Pacific Region.

Global Strategy: Representation of Asia-Pacific Heritage on the World Heritage List

Since the adoption of the World Heritage Convention in1972, numerous efforts have been made to ensure a morecredible, balanced and representative List. Since 1979, andprogressively afterwards, the bias towards monumentalarchitecture as well as the preponderance of cultural overnatural properties, has been repeatedly scrutinised by theWorld Heritage Committee and Advisory Bodies. However,the World Heritage List of properties is far from fully rep-resenting the rich ethno-cultural and biogeographicaldiversity of the Asia-Pacific region.

In 1982, the IUCN World Commission for Protected Areas(WCPA) established a tentative inventory for natural prop-erties entitled ‘The World’s Greatest Natural Areas: anindicative inventory of natural sites of World Heritagequality’, designed to increase the number of viable naturalheritage nominations. Following the categorisation ofmajor biogeographic realms conceived by Miklos Udvardyfor the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme in1975, 31 sites were identified for the Indomalayan Realm,14 sites for the Oceanian Realm, and 13 for the AustralianRealm (together making up the Asia-Pacific Region cov-ered by this report, along with sites in North-East Asia andWest-Central Asia included within the Palaearctic Realm).

Although the 1982 inventory was conceived to be revisedon a regular basis, few IUCN compilations have updatedthis ‘global tentative list’ for natural sites. To date in 2003,10 of the 31 Indomalayan sites have been inscribed on theWorld Heritage List (all are covered by this report), 10 fromthe 13 on the list for Australia have been inscribed (some-times clustered together as in the case of the Wet Tropicsof Queensland); whilst only 3 of the 14 Oceanic sites havebeen inscribed (East Rennell, Solomon Islands; Rapa Nui,Chile; Hawaii Volcanoes, USA). Other conservation organ-isations such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

15


© U

NES

CO

Shorebirds and guardhouse at Tubbataha Reef Marine Park,Philippines

and Conservation International (CI), have also producedlists of the 200 globally most important ‘Eco-Regions’ and‘biodiversity hotspots’ which now act as complementaryprocesses to identify suitable natural sites for WorldHeritage nomination.

As the Section I summaries and recommendations demon-strate (see CD-Rom), considerable disparity exists in theimplementation in the World Heritage Convention in theAsia-Pacific Region. Whilst countries such as Australia,New Zealand and Japan have well-established nationalinventories and Tentative Lists, many other Asian countriesin West-Central Asia, South Asia and South-East Asia haveyet to recognise non-monumental forms of heritage. In thecase of the Pacific Island Countries, as emphasised during acapacity-building workshop held in Samoa in February2003, many of the States Parties have only recently ratifiedthe Convention, and are only now in the process of creat-ing inventories and drawing up national Tentative Lists forsubmission to the World Heritage Committee.

In terms of a more balanced cultural heritage representa-tion, ICOMOS initiated discussions between 1987 and1993 on a functional typology for global cultural heritagebased upon comparative factors including ‘type’, ‘style’and ‘epoch’. In parallel, the World Heritage Committeehas repeatedly stressed the need to reflect the full livingcultural, intellectual and religious diversity of humankind.As a consequence, a non-typological methodology (the“Global Strategy”) was established by the World HeritageCommittee and ICOMOS in June 1994 to redress the geo-graphical, temporal and spiritual imbalances of the List.The expert group identified the following themes placed in their “broad anthropological context”: (1) human co-existence with the land - movement of peoples; settle-ments; modes of subsistence; technological evolution; and(2) human beings in society - human interaction, cultural co-existence, spirituality & creative expression.

At the request of the Working Group on the Representativityof the World Heritage List, ICOMOS prepared in 2000 ananalysis of the World Heritage List according to 15 cate-gories and 7 historical periods. For the Asian region, some67% of the cultural sites inscribed in January 2000 werefound to belong to the 3 categories of archaeological sites,historic towns and Buddhist monuments. In comparison,only 2 Islamic monuments, 4 landscapes, 1 industrial site, 1 symbolic site and 1 vernacular settlement had beeninscribed in the Asian region. For Australia, New Zealandand the Pacific (Solomon Islands), only 5 sites wereinscribed on the List for their cultural value (2 archaeologicalsites, 2 landscapes and 1 symbolic site).

As of March 2004 in the Asian region, 128 sites have nowbeen inscribed on the World Heritage List in 20 StatesParties, and concerted efforts are underway to correct theongoing imbalances in representation. Of the seven Asian States Parties which do not yet have cultural or natural sites inscribed on the List – including Bhutan, theDemocratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Kyrgyz

Republic, Maldives, Mongolia, Tajikistan and the Union ofMyanmar – a large proportion have either submitted, orare in the process of preparing, their first nominations. TheSection II summaries included in the CD-Rom present thestate of conservation of all sites in Asia inscribed on theWorld Heritage List before or in 1994.

In the case of the Pacific, as of March 2004, only threeStates Parties – Australia, New Zealand & the SolomonIslands – have 19 inscribed sites on the World Heritage List,whilst the Pacific Island Countries of Fiji, Kiribati, MarshallIslands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Niue, Palau,Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Vanuatu are in the processof preparing Tentative Lists and their first nominations. TheSection I national reports included in the CD-Rom sum-marise some of the efforts made by these non-representedStates Parties to implement the World HeritageConvention. The Section II summaries included in the CD-Rom describe the state of conservation of sites inAustralia and New Zealand inscribed on the WorldHeritage List before or in 1994.

Types of under-represented categories in theAsia-Pacific Region

1. Tropical, coastal and marine island systems2. Cultural landscapes, sacred mountains3. Karst and steppe landscapes4. Fossil hominids, rock art, prehistoric and protohistoric5. Routes and crossroads of civilizations6. Archaeological and monumental properties 7. Modern and contemporary architecture8. Vernacular architecture9. Industrial heritage

16


© U

NES

CO

Victoria Terminus, a potential industrialWorld Heritage, India

© U

NES

CO

East Rennell, SolomonIslands

© U

NES

CO

Bamiyan Buddhas, Afghanistan

The World Heritage Centre has been very active in address-ing the representation of the heritage of the Asia-PacificRegion through international assistance and expert meet-ings. In particular, a Global Strategy Expert Meeting washeld in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, in May 2000, to examinethe scope of Central Asian Cultural Heritage and identifymajor themes attesting to the cultural-ethnic diversity ofsteppes, deserts, mountains and the regional “crossroadof civilizations” in the Central Asian Sub-Region. Similarly,the recommendations of a workshop held in Almaty,Kazakhstan, in December 2002, on the possibilities fornew nominations of natural and mixed World Heritage in Central Asia are presented below. A meeting onAssociative Culture was held in Australia in 1995. In addi-tion, a Global Strategy Meeting for the Pacific Islands washeld in Fiji in 1997. The aim of these meetings was toencourage Pacific Island countries to join the WorldHeritage Convention and identify potential World Heritageproperties in the Pacific. Further discussion of sites forpotential nomination took place in Apia, Samoa, inFebruary 2003.

The ‘Global Strategy Meeting for States Parties in South-East Asia’ held in Tana Toraja, Indonesia, in April 2001stressed the importance of identification and protection ofvernacular architecture and traditional settlements of theregion’s numerous ethnic communities inhabiting themountainous regions of continental South-East Asia,Yunnan Province in China, as well as in the forests of IslandStates of the region. Conservation of the remarkable archi-tecture and fast-disappearing timber buildings requireurgent attention.

In December 1998, a ‘Global Policy Dialogue on WorldHeritage Forests’ held in Berastagi in Northern Sumatra,Indonesia, gathered experts from 20 different countriesand led to the identification of 63 forests eligible for inscription on the World Heritage List. An expert workshop on ‘Karst Biodiversity and World Heritage in East and South-East Asia’ was held in Gunung Mulu National Park,Malaysia, in May 2001. The workshop identified the partic-ular potential for Karst ecosystems to satisfy cultural as wellas natural heritage criteria, and increase the number ofmixed nominations in East and South-East Asian countries.

In March 2002, a ‘World Heritage Marine BiodiversityWorkshop: filling critical gaps and promoting multi-siteapproaches to new nominations of tropical coastal, marine& small island ecosystems’ was held in Hanoi, Vietnam.The meeting of natural heritage experts elaborated a bio-geographic approach with large-scale interconnectionsand cluster nominations (such as migratory marine species)and identified 79 areas of global importance according toa three-tier ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ list that would merit considerationfor World Heritage listing.

In addition, a desk survey commissioned by the WorldHeritage Centre in 2002 explored 11 ‘geo-cultural cate-gories’ across the Asia-Pacific Region, and recommendedthat priority nomination be accorded to the following

natural areas: (i) steppe & grasslands; (ii) Indian Ocean &Pacific Islands; (iii) Himalayan and related mountain sys-tems; (iv) lowland tropical forest sites; and (v) great riversystems (Finlayson et al. 2002 ‘World Heritage global strat-egy with specific reference to the Asia-Pacific Region’).Similarly, in a preliminary review of natural sites on theWorld Heritage List and Tentative Lists in 2002, the IUCNSenior Advisor for World Heritage, Jim Thorsell, also notesthat tundra and polar systems, boreal forests, and lake sys-tems are the least common biome classification occurringon the List.

The survey by Finlayson et al. further sub-divided theWorld Heritage List into 9 cultural ‘thematic areas’ and rec-ommended that under-represented themes such as ‘science’, ‘philosophy’, ‘communication’ and ‘military’sites be promoted. Ranked comparisons with hierarchicalconsiderations as ‘level 1’ and ‘level 2’ were also proposedto help Asia-Pacific States Parties revise their Tentative Lists(for example: Jain, Zoroastrian or Taoist under-representedarchitectural works are a ‘level 2’ subset of the broader‘level 1’ category of ‘religious or spiritual architecture’).

Other expert studies to assist States Parties in the revisionof Tentative Lists have also been carried out for South-EastAsia and the Indian subcontinent, and are currently beingextended to West-Central Asia. To expand its thematicstudy focus on modern heritage, the World HeritageCentre has completed a desk study of 19-20th Centuryheritage in China, and has initiated an examination ofpotential cluster properties representing modern heritagein South Asia. Following a Conference on ModernHeritage held in Chandigarh, India, in February 2003, col-laboration between the World Heritage Centre and the‘mAAn’ network of modern heritage practioners in Asiahas been strengthened.

In the future, it is hoped that States Parties to the WorldHeritage Convention in Asia and the Pacific will submitsub-regional Tentative Lists for both natural and culturalsites (involving cultural co-operation between StatesParties) with an overall focus on cluster and transboundarynominations. As part of the Global Strategy for the Asia-Pacific Region, some of the following priority areas fornomination have been identified.

17


© U

NES

CO

Mammal Fossil at Naracoorte, Australia

Fossil Hominid and Rock Art Sites

Human origin is a subject of global interest which addressesthe roots of our current ethnic diversity. A number of fossil sites occupy an iconic position in the demonstrationof human evolution and are signposts in the self-discoveryof our evolutionary heritage. All of these questions requirefossil evidence collected from different habitats in manycountries. The fossil record has grown enormously in thepast fifty years – especially in Africa – and efforts are cur-rently underway to increase the number of fossil hominidsites on the World Heritage List in the Asia-Pacific region.

The chronology of human evolution can be divided intofour periods: (A) A distinct African hominid line is esti-mated at 5 million years; by 2-1 million years ago theseearly hominids colonised large parts of Asia and Europe.(B) Diverse regional representatives of the genus Homolater developed until 300,000 before the present. (C)Further regional evolution of Homo took place between300,000-30,000 years ago leading to well-known fossilsamples in both Europe and Western Asia. (D) Around150,000 years ago, anatomically modern humans, Homosapiens sapiens, believed to have spread out of Africa,reached many parts of continental Asia by 60,000 BC,Australia by 50,000 BC, and as far as the western Pacificislands by 30,000 BC (Gamble & Stringer 1997, Potentialfossil hominid sites for inscription on the World HeritageList - a comparative study).

Evidence of different waves of hominid migrations is cur-rently being discovered in the Asia-Pacific region, sheddingnew light on theories of human evolution. This great pre-historic colonization set the stage for the later developmentof today’s human populations. However, hominids werenever very plentiful and their archaeological remains are stillvery hard to find. In order to increase the representativity ofsuch sites on the World Heritage List, increasing attentionis currently being given to groups of closely related sitesand even landscapes (with a ranked potential for furtherdiscoveries) to maintain well-preserved environmental evi-dence of hominid fossils and other archaeological values.

The Ban Chiang Archaeological site in Thailand, for example, has been inscribed on the World Heritage List asevidence of agricultural adaptation to the environment inSouth-East Asia some 5,000 years ago. Of the 8 sites withhominid material that are already inscribed on the WorldHeritage List, 3 sites are found in Asia-Pacific region:Zhoukoudian (Peking Man Site, China, dated 18-11,000BC), Willandra Lakes (Australia, period D), and SangiranEarly Man Site (Indonesia, 1.5 million year Homo erectusfossils, period A). The following sites with importanthominid remains have been identified as priority areas fornomination in the Asia-Pacific region: Murray River ceme-teries (Australia, period D); Solo River (Indonesia periods B,C); and Niah Caves (Malaysia, period D).

Closely associated with the recognition of fossil sites, hasbeen an increased effort to boost the number of prehis-

toric and protohistoric rock art sites on the World HeritageList in both Asia and the Pacific. In China, rock art sitessuch as Helanshan with its valuable engravings, as well asthe wall paintings of Huashan are under consideration forWorld Heritage listing. In Kazakhstan, the nomination ofthe open-air petroglyphs of Tamgaly was submitted inJanuary 2003. In India, the Tentative List site of theBhimbetka cave paintings near Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh,is currently being prepared for submission. In Indonesia,numerous cave paintings are also located on the island ofKalimantan with strong World Heritage potential. InVanuatu, discussions have begun to nominate a rock artsite at Malekula.

Cultural Landscapes

The Asia-Pacific region is at the origin of the developmentof the concept of cultural landscapes on the WorldHeritage List. The first three cultural landscapes inscribedon the List, Tongariro National Park in New Zealand, UluruKata Tjuta National Park in Australia, and the Banaue RiceTerraces in the Philippines are all located in Asia and thePacific. The recognition of the Maori spiritual attachmentand veneration of the sacred mountain peaks at Tongariro,represented a turning point for the Convention in furtheremphasising the importance of interaction between peo-ple and their environment. The introduction of the cate-gory of associative cultural landscape has encouraged thesubmission of mixed nominations throughout the world,as well as stimulating Pacific Island Countries to see theapplicability of the World Heritage Convention in theircountries, where customary land ownership and indige-nous knowledge form the basis for heritage protection.

Following a ‘Regional Thematic Study Meeting on AsianRice Culture and its Terraced Landscapes’ in the Philippinesin March 1995, financed under the Global Strategy, fourclusters of rice terraces located in Ifugao province wereinscribed on the World Heritage List in 1995 (therefore notincluded in this report) – later to be placed on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger. Numerous other terraced land-scapes found in Asia, such as Honghe in Yunnan, China,and terracing systems in northern Myanmar, have strongpotential as under-represented World Heritage culturallandscapes. In late 1995, a meeting on Associative CulturalLandscapes for the Asia-Pacific region examined theimportance of recognising spiritual, religious, social andartistic values in the identification of World Heritage cul-tural landscapes. Furthermore, an expert meeting was alsoheld in Japan in September 2001 on Sacred Mountains ofAsia, which identified pilgrimage routes and other diverseland-based traditions in Asia, which recognise mountainsas loci of outstanding universal value.

Industrial Heritage: Railways, Bridges and Canals

Although Europe was at the centre of the industrial revo-lution in the nineteenth century, Asia has developed andrefined sophisticated technological advancements foralmost 5,000 years. If the concept of ‘industrial heritage’

18


is broadened to include early examples of canals, bridgesand railway construction projects, the Asia-Pacific regionhas great potential in pioneering new nominations.However, the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway (DHR) in India,and the Dujiangyan Irrigation System in China (bothinscribed after 1994, and therefore not included in thisSynthesis Report) are two of the only existing examples ofindustrial heritage sites inscribed on the World HeritageList in the Asia-Pacific Region.

Central Asian Earth Programme 2002-2012

ObjectivesThe primary objective of the Central Asian EarthProgramme is to build capacity of the site managementauthorities and technical experts in Central Asia(Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan) for enhanced conservation, presentationand management of future world cultural heritage inthe region through close co-operation at the interna-tional, regional and national levels.

Partners include:• The cultural authorities of the five Central Asian

Republics concerned• UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Division of Cultural

Heritage, and Field Offices• CRATerre-EAG, ICCROM, ICOMOS, UCL (Belgium)

• Support from Governmental DevelopmentCooperation Agencies, and other IGO, NGO and private foundations is being sought actively for PhaseII and III of the programme

Three results are expected from this programme:• A better known and recognised immovable cultural

heritage• Professionals trained to conserve, manage and present

immovable cultural heritage• Professionals trained in enhanced conservation of

cultural heritage

Issues to be addressed:• Updating of national inventories• Strengthening protective legislations, regulations and

administrative frameworks for cultural heritage• Enhancement of the awareness and application of the

notions of integrity and authenticity of cultural heritage

• Upgrading of conservation planning process• Promotion of preventive conservation strategies and

techniques• Increasing levels of technical expertise, especially

focusing on the conservation of earthen traditionalarchitectural heritage

• Enhancement of management, presentation andinterpretation of cultural resources

• Developing partnerships between stakeholders

As an outstanding example of technological innovation inits relationship to landscape, the Darjeeling HimalayanRailway line climbs up to an elevation of over 2000m in theEastern Himalayas. The railway, which helped makeDarjeeling synonymous with quality tea, was the first hillrailway of its type, and was the precedent for other

19


The Great Kyz Kala at Ancient Merv, Turkmenistan

© A

ncie

nt M

erv

Proj

ect,

Inst

itute

of

Arc

heol

ogiy

, UC

L.

Restoration work at Ibn Zayd, Ancient Merv,Turkmensiatn

© A

ncie

nt M

erv

Proj

ect,

Inst

itute

of

Arc

heol

ogiy

, UC

L.

railways in India including the Nilgiri, Simla, and Matheranlines. Other comparable lines in the Asia-Pacific regioninclude the Dalat line in Vietnam, and the Maymyo line inMyanmar. The irrigation system of Dujiangyan in Chinawas begun in the 3rd century BC and still controls thewaters of the Minjiang river in the Chengdu plains today.Numerous other traditional irrigation schemes have alsobeen maintained across many countries in both South-East& South Asia.

Bridge building in Asia extends back earlier in time than inEurope. Bridge building flourished in China while lan-guishing in Europe for nearly eight centuries following thedecline of the Roman Empire. Because structural conceptsof beam, arch, suspension, and cantilever were first devel-oped in Asia with great sophistication, every effort is cur-rently being made to identify surviving examples forinclusion on the World Heritage List.

China was the origin of many bridge forms. Marco Polodescribed 12,000 bridges built of wood, stone, and ironnear the ancient city of Kin-sai. The first chain-link suspen-sion bridge in the world was built by General Panceng dur-ing the Han Dynasty (c 206 BC). In 1665, during the MingDynasty, a missionary later reported a 61-metre chain-linksuspension bridge, a feat only achieved in Europe andNorth America some two hundred years later. China’s old-est surviving bridge, the Zhaozhou Bridge (c 605 AD) builtin Hebei Province during the Song Dynasty, is the world’soldest open-spandrel segmental arch. Its thin, curvedstone slabs were joined with iron dovetails so that the archcould yield without collapsing.

Phra Phutthos in Kompong Kdei, Cambodia, was con-structed at the end of the 12th century during the reign ofJayavarman VII, with more than twenty narrow archesspanning 75 metres, and is the longest corbelled stone-arch bridge in the world. Other fine bridges survive in Iran,such as the bridge of Khaju at Isfahan (c 1667), with 18pointed arches, carrying a 26-metre wide roadway withshaded passageways, and flanked by pavilions and watch-towers. This magnificent bridge, combining architectureand engineering in splendid functional harmony, alsoserved as a dam and included a hostel offering cool restafter hot desert crossings.

Numerous picturesque bridges are also found in Japan.The superstructure of the Kintaikyo bridge in Iwakuni (c1673), consisting of five wooden arches intricatelywedged together, has been rebuilt for centuries faithfullymaintaining the fine craft tradition of bridge keepers. Eachgeneration of craftsmen has carefully replicated the joinerytechniques and materials of their predecessors. TheShogun’s Bridge in the sacred City of Nikko (c 1638) is theoldest known cantilever with hewn stone piers and timberbeams. The bridge was rebuilt after a typhoon in 1902,and still bears foot traffic today.

Influential waterways have always been important land-marks in the world history of cross-cultural exchange.

Along with many of the great river systems of Asia, suchas the Mekong, Brahmaputra, Yangtze and Indus, a widevariety of canals are considered to be technologically sig-nificant in terms of their design and historical construction.The earliest use of canals in China was for the transportand provisioning of troops, and the circulation of graintaxes (note: in the hierarchical levels mentioned above,canals would belong both to ‘level 1’ industrial heritage, aswell as being ‘level 2’ military sites).

Strengthening Representation of the Pacific onthe World Heritage List

Following Global Strategy meetings held in Fiji in 1997and in Vanuatu in 1999, and a number of WorldHeritage awareness-building missions over recent years,most Pacific Island countries have now signed theConvention (Kiribati 2000, Marshall Islands 2002, Niue2001, Palau 2002, Samoa 2001 and Vanuatu 2002).The non-member states yet to adhere to theConvention are the Cook Islands (part of New Zealand’sratification), Nauru, Tokelau (part of New Zealand’s ratification), Tonga and Tuvalu.

Pacific Island Countries on the World Heritage List

East Rennell in the Solomon Islands, the only naturalWorld Heritage property in the Pacific (with the excep-tion of Australia and New Zealand), was inscribed onthe World Heritage List in 1998. With the support ofItalian Funds-in-Trust, a World Heritage CapacityBuilding workshop for the Pacific Island countries washeld at the UNESCO Office in Apia, Samoa, in February2003. The objective of the workshop was to build professional and institutional capacity of the PacificIsland Member States to promote the implementationof the Convention.

Prospects to enhance Representation of the PacificIsland Countries on the List

• The draft nomination of the Kuk Early Agricultural sitein Papua New Guinea was prepared with the sup-port of Japan Funds in Trust. A request for PreparatoryAssistance for the second phase for the preparation ofthe Kuk nomination is to be submitted by the PapuaNew Guinea National Commission for UNESCO.Funding requests have also been submitted to theFrench Development Fund for preliminary discussionswith the Government of Papua New Guinea andConservation International and a feasibility study forthe possible World Heritage nomination of Milne Bayand an assessment of the World Heritage value of the17 Community Conservation Areas established by theSouth Pacific Regional Environment Programme(SPREP).

• Fiji has submitted two Preparatory Assistancerequests: Comparative Analysis Study for Levuka andWorld Heritage Stakeholders Consultation. The former

20


has been approved and the latter will be funded inearly 2004. The preparation of the nomination of SoviBasin, mixed property, is being discussed with therespective authorities in Fiji.

• Vanuatu’s Preparatory Assistance request for thepreparation of the Tentative Lists and inventories wasapproved, and the project has been implemented.Vanuatu is also expected to soon start working on thepreparation of the nomination “Roi Mata”. A StudyTour for leaders from Nan Madol (Federated States ofMicronesia) to Tongariro National Park (New Zealand)from Italian Funds in Trust will be implemented inearly 2004 with the assistance of New Zealand.

• Ailinginae Atoll in Marshall Islands will be discussedwith the respective authorities for World Heritage listing.

• Funds have been made available from Spanish Fundsin Trust to investigate the colonial architecture ofPalau.

• A meeting to discuss the feasibility of a transboundaryserial nomination among the Cook Islands, Kiribati,French Polynesia (France) and the US territories, forthe Central Pacific Atolls and Islands (including theLine Islands) was held in Honolulu, Hawaii in June2003. Kiribati has submitted an InternationalAssistance request to organise a World Heritageawareness workshop for stakeholders in Kiribati,which is expected to be held in October 2004.

The Magic Canal in China (Ling Qu c 219 BC) is the firstknown contour transport canal which formed part of a1250 mile waterway in 200 BC, and is still in heavy usetoday. The Grand Canal in China (c 400 BC) also remainsin use and is still the longest canal in the world. The GrandCanal, which grew out of the Pien Canal in Henan, a grain-growing area around the Yellow River, was extended andrebuilt over many centuries. Key features include the firstknown summit-level canal; the first pound lock; the firstrecorded staircase lock; and the second known navigationdam in the world (c 1411). The Lake Biwako Canal Inclinesnear Kyoto in Japan are a further outstanding example oftechnology transfer achieved between 1885-90, featuringone of the world’s first hydroelectric power stations.

Vernacular Architecture and Settlements

Other thematic and comparative studies are needed tomake the Asia-Pacific representation on the WorldHeritage List properly reflect the diversity of the region. Asmentioned earlier, identification and protection of vernac-ular architecture and settlements are urgently needed ifthe unique and extremely fragile heritage of the region’sethnic groups is to be saved from the forces of economicglobalization and cultural assimilation.

The fabulous built heritage of houses, ancestral tombs, villages, and the spiritual places of worship of the variousT’ai-speaking communities, Shan, Karen, Hmong, Yao,Aka, Lisu and others inhabiting the regions of present-day

Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, and Yunnan Provincein China, as well as the Dayaks, Bataks, Torajans andnumerous other peoples of the islands of South-East Asiaare disappearing year after year. Their heritage tells theWorld Heritage Story of technological innovation, ingen-ious land use, evolution of beliefs and religion, in manycases more so than the imposing monumental heritagethat are among the long list of cultural properties vying forWorld Heritage recognition. The challenge will be how toprotect and conserve the heritage of these ethnic commu-nities without condemning them into ‘human zoos’.

In the Pacific, the early colonial capital of Levuka in Fiji isthe first example of shared colonial heritage with its dis-tinctive architecture to be explored for World Heritagenomination. A comparative and thematic study of thisshared colonial and traditional architecture (for example,the Fale in Samoa, the Maneba in Kiribati) could extend tothe sub-regional and global context for a possible inscrip-tion on the World Heritage List.

In general, the national reports of the Asian and PacificStates Parties show little interest for new types of nomina-tions, such as cluster or transboundary nominations.However, certain States Parties have decided to revise theirTentative Lists to include under-represented categories ofcultural, natural and mixed heritage. This is the case ofIndia, where the List is currently being revised in collabora-tion with the State Government authorities and differentministries, together with local authorities and NGOs on aregional level.

It is hoped that in the future, revision of the nationalTentative Lists will take into account both the results of thefirst cycle of the Periodic Reporting exercise and the con-clusions and recommendations of the various regional andsub-regional Global Strategy meetings mentioned above.Likewise, it is important to promote the recognition of natural and mixed sites, and to encourage the official sub-mission of Tentative Lists for these to the World HeritageCommittee by the following States Parties in the region:Afghanistan, Cambodia, Indonesia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Niue Island, Pakistan, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Thailand,Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

21


© A

genc

y fo

r C

ultu

ral A

ffai

rs, G

over

nmen

t of

Jap

an

Historic Village of Shirakawa-go, Japan

Identification and Preservationof World Heritage Values

23

Jam Minaret, Afghanistan

© UNESCO / J.Margottini

2

In the requirements for inscription on the WorldHeritage List, the World Heritage Committeerequests three essential elements in the justificationfor inscription of potential World Heritage proper-ties: the outstanding universal value of the site,authenticity and/or integrity of the site, and evi-dence of the commitment of the State Party to fulland effective protection of the site. Although themeaning of these three elements has evolved in par-allel with the developments in the field of conserva-tion, restoration and management of cultural andnatural heritage, they nevertheless are the corner-stones of any statement of significance. Thus, thefirst questions of the Section II questionnaire areaimed at identifying basic information about theWorld Heritage properties concerned by the PeriodicReporting exercise, such as location of the site, sta-tus of its boundaries, possible renomination orextension of its protective zones, and state ofauthenticity and/or integrity of the site, including itssurroundings.

Considering that a certain number of the originalnomination files for the Asia-Pacific sites inscribedbefore or in 1994 lack the necessary information fora proper assessment of their state of conservation,the report questionnaires encouraged States Partiesin the region to submit detailed maps of their prop-erties, showing core and buffer zones, as well asother features of the properties that should be takeninto consideration when analyzing its outstandinguniversal value. The results of the site reports showthat, in the absence of defined models or guidelineson the concepts used by the World HeritageCommittee and specialists in heritage conservation,there are no two similar responses, since almostevery site manager has his own understanding ofwhat a statement of significance is, or of what a siterenomination implies.

Statements of Significance 2

During the elaboration of the Periodic Report format at the22nd session of the World Heritage Committee (Kyoto,Japan, 30 November – 5 December 1998), the issue of theexistence of statements of significance for older WorldHeritage inscriptions was addressed as follows:

“If a statement of significance is not available orincomplete, it will be necessary, in the first periodicreport, for the State Party to propose such a state-ment. The statement of significance should reflect the criterion (criteria) on the basis of which the

Committee inscribed the property on the WorldHeritage List. It should also address questions such as:what does the property represent, what makes theproperty outstanding, what are the specific valuesthat distinguish the property, what is the relationshipof the site with its setting, etc. Such statement of sig-nificance will be examined by the Advisory Body(ies)concerned and transmitted to the World HeritageCommittee for approval, if appropriate.”

The Section II questionnaire used this explanation of theWorld Heritage Committee when asking States Parties toelaborate statements of significance. All the site managersparticipated in the exercise and provided a statement ofsignificance for each property. But, while the exercise wasa success in terms of participation, the content and formatof the statements proposed illustrates the gaps in under-standing of the purpose of such a statement.

Discrepancies in Content and Format of ProposedStatements of Significance

Since the World Heritage Committee did not provide anofficial format for the elaboration of statements of signifi-cance, the latter are found in a great variety of formats,while also differing in content. Some are too short toaddress the uniqueness and outstanding values of a WorldHeritage property. This is the case for Meidan Emam,Isfahan in Iran, the Historic Mosque City of Bagerhat inBangladesh, Komodo National Park in Indonesia, and thePeking Man Site at Zhoukoudian in China. Others,although extremely precise and exhaustive, are too long tobe considered as statements of significance. This is espe-cially the case of natural and mixed World Heritage prop-erties, such as Mount Taishan in China or Lord Howe Islandin Australia.

In terms of content, the statements of significance do notall refer to the recommendations of the World HeritageCommittee included in the Section II questionnaire. Somestatements are merely a collection of historical factsrelated to a site, or an elaborate description of the monu-ments of a site. For example, Indian and Sri Lankan state-ments of significance tend to focus more on descriptionthan on analysis of the values and authenticity of theirWorld Heritage properties.

Similarly, statements of significance should reflect changesin the authenticity and integrity of the property, andinclude any relevant developments in the understanding ofthe site. Instead, some of the proposed statements of sig-nificance do not even refer to additional criteria for whicha property was renominated as World Heritage, or simplyomit to talk about major developments in the integrity ofthe site related to archaeological excavations or scientificdiscoveries. The reason for this is perhaps that certainstatements of significance have not been elaborated dur-ing the Periodic Reporting exercise, but are replicas of theICOMOS or IUCN evaluations provided at the time of thesite’s original inscription on the World Heritage List. The

24

Identification and Preservation of World Heritage Values2

2. In the revised Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of theWorld Heritage Convention, to be approved in 2004, the statementof significance of a site has been changed to the statement of out-standing universal value, the statement of authenticity and/or thestatement of integrity.

statements of significance for the Sun Temple, Konarak inIndia and the Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto inJapan are but two examples of static statements.

The Purpose of Statements of Significance

During the regional and sub-regional consultation meet-ings, Asia-Pacific States Parties have insisted on the needfor defining strict criteria in the drafting of statements ofsignificance, as well as the need for revision of the state-ments of significance with the help of the Advisory Bodiesand the World Heritage Centre. In this process of elabo-rating models for enhanced statements of significance, itis recommended that States Parties take inspiration fromthe statements which were proposed during the PeriodicReporting exercise for the following World Heritage prop-erties: the Sunderbans National Park in India, Angkor inCambodia, Mogao Caves in China, and the Great BarrierReef in Australia 3. These statements are good examples ofhow historical, scientific and cultural facts can be com-bined with a thorough analysis of the interaction andintertwining of these different elements, resulting in out-standing universal value and strong authenticity andintegrity of the properties. In other words, the statementof significance, in its relation to values, is a synthesis of thevalues identified through use of the criteria defined in theWorld Heritage Convention. Presenting the values of aproperty so that their preservation will be ensured throughadequate management entails the need to shift from theconcept of values to that of attributes. Attributes refer tothe way values are physically present through patterns,material remains, traditions, practices, etc. Indeed, to iden-tify authenticity for cultural heritage, one needs to askhow the values of a given site are manifest or expressed.These attributes need to be clearly identified in the state-ment of significance, as after all, it is the attributes that wemanage, and not values. All attributes of a property do notnecessarily reflect the values for which it was inscribed onthe World Heritage List. Being selective is also one of theaims of elaborating a formal statement of significance.

Therefore, it is crucial to highlight not only the intrinsicvalue of the statement of significance in providing baselineinformation on a property, but also its strategic use inmanagement and monitoring of the property. The ques-tions every site manager should ask himself on a regularbasis are the following: Does the statement of significancestill reflect the authenticity and integrity of the site at thetime of its inscription? Do the current site boundaries trulyembrace the site’s significance? Why are good statementsof significance so important for World Heritage proper-ties? The statement of significance is the first tool to assessa property’s needs in terms of protective zoning. Only adynamic statement of significance, regularly updated andrevised, can provide such a tool. However, as a formal

management tool, the statement of significance shouldnot be modified unilaterally, without going back to theWorld Heritage Committee and seeking its approval.

The Periodic Reporting exercise has been instrumental inidentifying the gaps in communication about statementsof significance. Like all the other aspects of a property’sdefinition – site boundaries, statement of authenticityand/or integrity – statements of significance are the resultof a dynamic process, during which the characteristics of asite are reevaluated according to its latest status. The nextPeriodic Reporting exercise should not only provide theWorld Heritage Committee with adequate statements, butalso allow it to compare statements, for enhanced under-standing of the significance of a region’s World Heritagethrough time.

Defining the Limits of a World HeritageProperty

The process of renomination of a World Heritage propertygenerally follows the same pattern as the nominationprocess. What are the conditions for a property to berenominated? Renomination can imply adding or chang-ing the cultural and/or natural criteria for which a site wasinscribed on the World Heritage List. An important exten-sion to a site, both in terms of size and value, also qualifiesas a renomination, and therefore requires the approval ofthe World Heritage Committee.

The difference between an extension of a property’s bufferzone to adapt to recent urban development, and an exten-sion of a site to include a whole new area, adding not onlyterritory but new value to the property, is not easy tomake. The results of the national periodic reports showthat this difference is not very clear to some States Parties,who proposed renominations where only small extensionsof the buffer zone were necessary and recommended.

25

Identification and Preservation of World Heritage Values 2

3. Electronic versions of these good models of statements of signifi-cance will be available on the website of the World Heritage Centrein Autumn 2004.

© IC

HO

Aerialview ofPersepolis,Iran

Boundary Issues at the Kathmandu ValleyWorld Heritage site (Nepal)

The Historic Context of the World HeritageInscription

The Kathmandu Valley was inscribed on the WorldHeritage List in 1979, as a single nomination comprisingseven Monument zones (MZ). Situated in the formerbed of a mountain lake, Kathmandu is a rapidly grow-ing capital of more than 1.1 million inhabitants, andexpanding over 600 km2. The areas nominated forinscription comprised an ensemble of historical publicand religious monuments surrounded by rich vernacularurban fabric. Thus, at the time of inscription, theboundaries of each Monument zone were consideredsufficient, and no core and buffer zones were identifiedlegally.

In 1978 and 1984, His Majesty’s Government of Nepal(HMGN) declared six out of the seven inscribed areas as“preserved monument zones” (with the exception ofPashupati), and gazetted them. However, the bound-aries of the areas as defined for the nomination of theKathmandu Valley differ considerably from thosegazetted by HMGN (see plans 1 and 2 for a comparison).

Defining Adequate Boundaries for the WorldHeritage Property

The state of conservation of the Kathmandu Valley wasfirst raised before the World Heritage Committee in1992, and has been every year since then, with theexception of 2002. In 1993, a UNESCO-ICOMOS jointreview mission was undertaken to evaluate the bound-aries and buffer zones of the seven Monument zonesand propose their revision, if necessary. The missionnoticed that most of the ad hoc created buffer zoneswere insufficient to halt the frenetic urbanizationprocess, which led to visual deterioration and destruc-tion of the traditional urban fabric of the city.Alternative solutions were recommended, such as thedefinition of secondary, potential or review zonesaround the core zone of Patan Darbar Square andSwayambhunath.

On a legal basis, two major obstacles have hinderedadequate protection and conservation of the sevenmonument zones. In the case of Pashupati, the provi-sions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act of1956 do not apply, as the Monument zone was notgazetted in respect of the law. More important, this lawdoes not recognise a structure per se as a monument,but only an area (ksetra) or place (tuan). This meansthat legal mechanisms for protection of tangible heritage can only apply to a vast zone comprising the monuments to be protected.

Additionally, the 1993 mission recommended that theboundaries of the monument zones be physicallydefined by stone markers, and taken into account dur-ing the elaboration of master plans.

The results of the 1998 UNESCO-ICOMOS-HMGN jointmission demonstrate that some of the recommenda-tions on site boundaries have been implemented.Progress has been made in the redefinition of threeMonument zones (Bhaktapur, Patan andSwayambhunath) and in the physical delimitation ofPashupati. Nevertheless, despite the efforts of theNepalese authorities to preserve the authenticity of thevernacular heritage around the historic monumentalensembles inscribed on the World Heritage List, the sit-uation has worsened since 1993. The deterioration ofthe traditional urban fabric led the World HeritageCommittee to ask for two high level missions, the firstone in September 2000, and the second one inFebruary 2003.

The 2003 High Level Mission, although not commis-sioned to evaluate the site boundaries, noted that coreand buffer zones needed to be redefined for the pro-tected areas, following a complete inventory of allseven Monument zones. This redefinition should onlyconcern those areas, which still pass the test of authen-ticity and still retain outstanding universal values.

26

Identification and Preservation of World Heritage Values2©

UN

ESC

O

Image 1:Boundaries ofBauddanath MZ as inscribed on theWH List in 1979

© U

NES

CO

Image 2:Boundaries ofBauddhanath asgazetted by HMGof Nepal in 1984

Kathmandu on the List of World Heritage inDanger and Prospects for Boundary Redefinitions

After deferring its decision for almost 10 years, theWorld Heritage Committee finally decided to inscribeKathmandu Valley on the World Heritage in Danger Listat its 27th session in 2003. During this session, contrast-ing opinions emerged among the States Parties repre-sentatives between those in favour of deleting theproperty and re-nominating it after legally redefiningthe core and support zones of six of the seven MZs, andthose favouring the inscription of the property on theWorld Heritage List in Danger, while simultaneously rec-ommending the State Party to legally redefine the coreand support zones of six of the seven MZs. TheCommittee finally opted for the second proposition.

Proposals have been made during the Committee ses-sion for the site to be re-nominated as a serial nomina-tion. This point will be raised again when theCommittee examines the recommendations of theUNESCO ‘International Technical Workshop for theProtection of the Kathmandu Valley’, which took placein May 2004.

Delineation of World Heritage properties and theIssue of Authenticity

The Kathmandu Valley case illustrates the close interre-lationship between the values and authenticity of a siteand its boundaries. Rather than a static reality, thedelineation of World Heritage properties should followa dynamic process, requesting regular readjustments ofthe boundaries to adapt to the evolution of the sur-rounding environment. In the case of the KathmanduValley inscription, it was unclear whether the sites nomi-nated were inscribed only for their outstanding architec-tural values, or whether the retained authenticity of thetraditional urban fabric around the monuments per sewas part of the evaluation process for the inscription.

The Need for Renomination of Asian World Heritage

According to West-Central Asian States Parties, the shiftfrom single monument inscriptions to nominations takinginto account the entire setting and landscape of a site hasled many Asian States, within the framework of thePeriodic Reporting exercise, to reconsider their originalnomination files and propose, where necessary, a renomi-nation or extension of their World Heritage properties.Since renomination and extension of a property usually –but not always – result in a redefinition of the site bound-aries, it is necessary to read the question of renominationand of revision of the site boundaries together.

Some site-specific reports do not seem to adequatelyenvisage the correlation between renomination and revi-sion of the site boundaries. Iran, for example, suggests anextension of the buffer zone for Tchoga Zanbil to includethe natural setting into the site nomination and thusenhance the understanding of the site within its topo-graphical and natural surroundings. A re-nomination isproposed for Persepolis as well, since new discoveries anda better understanding of the site have made extensions toit necessary. This proposed extension and renomination isproposed under the question asking for possible renomi-nations of World Heritage properties, while the concernedreports do not mention any revision of the site boundariesin the question relating to that topic. This incoherence,which may also result from the overlapping of similar ques-tions in the questionnaire, can also be found in the reportsfor some South Asian properties.

Significant Proposed Renominations and SiteExtensions

The reasons for renominating or extending a site are various, and not always described in detail. Reasons forrenominating a site by usually adding one or more criteria,are the following:• Archaeological or historical discoveries;• Scientific or biological discoveries;• Better understanding of a site’s significance and value

than at the time of inscription.

Reasons for proposing the extension of site boundariesinclude:• Archaeological or historical discoveries;• Development threats such as rapid urbanization,

encroachments, demographic pressure;• Illegal activities such as poaching, fishing, smuggling of

wildlife or cultural relics;• Enhanced authenticity and/or integrity of the site.

The national Periodic Reports have brought to the atten-tion of the World Heritage Committee the fact that manyAsian World Heritage properties, especially cultural her-itage properties, needed either renomination of the siteaccording to new criteria, or extension of their core andbuffer zone. Significant proposed renominations for cul-tural heritage include:

27

Identification and Preservation of World Heritage Values 2©

UN

ESC

O

Image 3:Boundaries ofBauddhanath asproposed byUNESCO/ICOMOSmission in 1993

• The Group of Monuments at Mahabalipuram (India), forwhich an additional criterion is requested followingrecent archaeological excavations;

• The Buddhist Monuments at Sanchi (India), for which aserial nomination is proposed;

• The Imperial Palace of Ming and Qing Dynasty (China),for which a serial nomination with the city of Shenyang,Liaoning Province, is proposed;

• And the Ancient Building Complex in the WudangMountains (China), for which two additional criteria (N iiiand N vi) are suggested.

Natural heritage properties in the region have already ben-efited from renominations. Some of the renominationsproposed by the States Parties in their national reports arealready being examined by the World Heritage Centre andthe Advisory Bodies, such as the Nanda Devi National Parkextension to include the ‘Valley of Flowers’ in India, whileothers are new suggestions to be submitted to the WorldHeritage Committee for approval:• Ha Long Bay to include natural criteria iv for its biodiver-

sity (on Catba island)• Mount Taishan (China), for which natural criteria i and ii

are proposed;• Huanglong Valley (China), for which natural criterion iv

is proposed;• Wulingyuan (China), for which natural criterion iv is

proposed;• and the Australian Fossil Mammals Sites Riversleigh and

Naracoorte (Australia), for which a renomination is pro-posed to include the nearby national park.

In view of the number of proposed extensions to coreand/or buffer zones, it is not possible to list them all here.For detailed information on the extensions proposed bythe Asia-Pacific States Parties, please refer to the site spe-cific summaries on the CD-Rom included with this report.Nevertheless, it must be noted that the growing need forsite extensions is the combined result of the better under-standing of World Heritage properties and their settings,due to accrued research and awareness raising, and ofstrong development pressures, forcing site managers intoa daily battle to preserve the protective borders of theirWorld Heritage properties. These two antagonistic phe-nomena cannot be dealt with separately and must beaddressed together, along with the proposed extension ofsite boundaries.

New Approaches to Site Boundary-Setting

According to the revised Operational Guidelines for theImplementation of the World Heritage Convention of2004, the “clear delineation of the boundaries and of anynecessary buffer zone” is a prerequisite for any site inscrip-tion on the World Heritage List. Moreover, the “delin-eation of boundaries is an essential requirement in theestablishment of effective protection of nominated prop-erties.” At this stage, not all the Asia-Pacific region WorldHeritage properties have clearly defined boundaries. Thislack of defined boundaries often coincides with scarce

information on the topographical nature of the surround-ing areas of a site, not to mention more detailed scientificinformation in the case of natural heritage properties.

This particular situation noted, the national PeriodicReports show that site managers and national heritageexperts are increasingly aware of the importance of pro-tective World Heritage zoning. To be truly efficient, thiszoning needs to be based on legal instruments and repre-sented on official maps and plans. Many Asian StatesParties, and in particular North-East Asian States Parties,have highlighted the need for clearly defined WorldHeritage boundaries together with the existence of a legalprovision for these boundaries. Sub-regional and regionalconsultation meetings organised as part of the PeriodicReporting exercise have resulted in new proposals forenhanced World Heritage zoning. The identification ofsupport zones has been proposed by South Asian coun-tries to mitigate the effects of tourism on World Heritageproperties. South-East Asian States Parties have come upwith proposals for a ‘leopard spot’ type of World Heritagezoning.

In any case, the complementary issues of renominationand revision of site boundaries cannot be dealt with sepa-rately, nor can they be addressed without any reference tothe question of statements of significance examined ear-lier. To be truly demonstrative of World Heritage values, toadequately protect them, site boundaries must be elabo-rated from the statements of significance, bearing in mindthe authenticity and integrity of the site. Only once the siteboundaries are reexamined and redefined can a proper sitemanagement plan be drawn up. However, the core of theproblem remains the difficult appreciation of what the val-ues of a site are, and how they are affected by the presentauthenticity and integrity of the site.

Evaluating the Authenticity and Integrityof World Heritage Properties

Authenticity and integrity issues have been at the heart ofWorld Heritage policy orientations and debates since theVenice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration ofMonuments and Sites in 1964, and even more since the

28


© A

SD /

CC

F

Map of Galle showing the proposed extension of the WorldHeritage core and buffer zones, Sri Lanka

Nara Document on Authenticity, elaborated by interna-tional cultural experts assembled in Nara in 1994 to cele-brate the 30th anniversary of the Venice Charter. The NaraDocument integrates new conceptions of authenticity tothe general definition of values and authenticity. It con-cludes as follows:

“All judgments about values attributed to culturalproperties as well as the credibility of related informa-tion sources may differ from culture to culture, andeven within the same culture. It is thus not possible tobase judgments of values and authenticity withinfixed criteria. On the contrary, the respect due to allcultures requires that heritage properties must be con-sidered and judged within the cultural contexts towhich they belong.”

Subsequently, there cannot be a one and only definition ofauthenticity and integrity. This is particularly the case inAsia, where different and sometimes antagonistic tradi-tions in heritage conservation coexist.

A Prerequisite for Inscription on the World HeritageList

What are authenticity and integrity? Authenticity refers tothe genuine status of a listed monument, group of monu-ments, or site, usually of national and/or regional signifi-cance. Authenticity is a measure of the degree to whichthe values of a property may be understood to have beencredibly, truthfully, and genuinely expressed by the attrib-utes of the property. These are fairly clear, as expressed in the Nara Document and the revised OperationalGuidelines (Annex 4): material, design, setting, workman-ship, tradition, function, and ‘spirit’. However, this doesnot mean that the property needs to be preserved in thestate closest to its original feature. Certain cultural tradi-tions insist on the authenticity of the stones and artifactspresent on a site (a tree with a sacred background, a pavedsquare where significant events of a nation’s history haveoccurred, etc.). This striving for the ‘original’ structure ofmonuments has motivated professional archaeologicalpractice since the mid-19th century. Others, on the con-trary, insist on the living heritage rather than on the phys-

ical remains of a place or site, and replace old original ruinsby brand new idealised replacements. This practice is com-mon in South and South-East Asia, where Buddhistmonasteries are being regularly renovated to correspondto the local image of what a Buddhist monastery shouldlook like. Exceptionally, such as in the case of Japan’sShinto shrines (Ise Shrine being the most representativecase), wooden structures are being regularly rebuilt, whilestill retaining the original workmanship methods and theoriginal functions of the monument.

Integrity originally referred only to natural heritage. A sitefulfilling the conditions of integrity would normally containall the elements related to its character or relevant ecosys-tem. In this sense, integrity can easily be measuredthrough various indicators, such as the populationchanges in local flora and fauna. In recent years, cultural

properties have been increasingly faced with threatsaffecting their physical integrity, such as encroachments,looting, vandalism, and natural disasters. Integrity, thusreferring to material completeness and intactness of cul-tural heritage and its attributes, has become an integralpart of the analysis of the values of potential and inscribedWorld Heritage properties, together with the test ofauthenticity.

The new revised version of the Operational Guidelines forthe Implementation of the World Heritage Conventioninsists on authenticity and/or integrity as prerequisites fora property’s inscription on the World Heritage List (authen-ticity and integrity for cultural and mixed properties,integrity only for natural properties). This confirms thegeneral acceptance of the two concepts by the interna-tional community of heritage specialists. In 1999, ICOMOSadopted the Nara Document as a professional charter, andIUCN recently published its Guidelines for Protected AreaManagement Categories.

Changes in Authenticity and/or Integrity

It is a common misconception that changes in authenticityor integrity can only lead to a loss in authenticity orintegrity. On the contrary, in the site-specific reports sub-mitted by the Asia-Pacific States Parties, one third of the

29


© S

AC

H

The Red Terrace of Putuozongchenzhimiao before renovation,Chengde Mountain Resort, China

© S

AC

H

The Red Terrace of Putuozongchenzhimiao after renovation,Chengde Mountain Resort, China

changes mentioned for cultural World Heritage are posi-tive changes, and this proportion rises to 50% for naturaland mixed World Heritage. Taking for granted that therecan only be either negative or positive changes is anothermisconception that the reports however manage to avoid.There are a few sites where positive and negative changescoexist, making management and monitoring of thesesites all the more complex. This is the case of the AncientCity of Polonnaruwa in Sri Lanka, where authenticity hasbeen both enhanced through the conservation worksfinanced by tourism, and threatened by the same tourismand its related uncontrolled infrastructural activities.Likewise, Mount Taishan in China has been increasinglythreatened by infrastructural pressures, until remedialmeasures were taken and the “original scenery was reno-vated” (Periodic Report, Section II).

What are the changes affecting a property’s authenticityand/or integrity? The following have been proposed ascauses of negative threats on the authenticity/integrity ofa property:• development pressures, especially urban pressure, infra-

structural pressure, and demographic pressure;• tourism pressure, often related to development pressures;• illegal activities such as excavations, poaching, logging,

and smuggling of cultural or natural relics;• natural disasters.

Development pressures, combined with the negativeimpacts of tourism, are the primary reason for deteriora-tion of a site’s unique values. South-East Asian propertiesare particularly prone to pressures from development andtourism. In the Philippines, the authenticity and integrity oftwo out of the four Baroque churches are threatened byincreasing encroachments, together with plans for a con-jectural reconstruction of some of the ruins of San Agustinintramuros into a commercial building. In other cases, suchas the archaeological site of Ban Chiang in Thailand, theintegrity is well preserved due to the particular situation ofthe site (buried). The authenticity, however, of the propertyis threatened not only by classical development pressures,such as the expansion of nearby communities or infra-structural development, but also by the cultural effects ofglobalisation and the negative effects of local traditionalcultures overwhelmed by the global cultural model. Thepressures are similar in North-East and South Asia. In thelatter, religious pressure also needs to be taken intoaccount, as it is mentioned by site managers for the Groupof Monuments at Hampi (India), the Churches andConvents of Old Goa (India), and the Sacred City ofAnuradhapura (Sri Lanka).

As regards illegal activities, they particularly affect naturaland mixed World Heritage properties. Selective logging inthe case of the Wet Tropics of Queensland (Australia),intensive fishing in the Ha Long Bay (Vietnam), or the sideeffects of uranium mining in the Kakadu National Park(Australia), are all threats to the authenticity and integrityof the sites. Cultural World Heritage properties are notspared by illegal activities, either; illegal collections of

stone artifacts at Kakadu are but one example. AlthoughWest Central Asian States Parties do not mention anychanges to the authenticity and integrity of their WorldHeritage, it is understood that looting and smuggling ofcultural artifacts are a major threat to the preservation ofthe values of the properties in the sub-region.

Natural disasters tend to affect the integrity of a site ratherthan its authenticity. Site managers of the Ancient BuildingComplex in the Wudang Mountains (China) believe thatthe integrity of some of the buildings will probably beaffected in the near future by the water diverting projectsin the area, since these buildings will have to be movedand relocated elsewhere. In the case of the WillandraLakes Region (Australia), continued deflation and erosionis considered a negative change in authenticity. However,as the report states, “with regard to the integrity of theregion, it is an irony of the Willandra Lakes that continuederosion of key geomorphological features results in the

exposure of cultural sites that further reinforce the reasonfor listing”, (Periodic Report, Section II). In both examples,what is considered to be a matter only affecting integrityis nevertheless intrinsically linked to the authenticity of theproperties, with negative or positive impacts. Indeed, howcan historical buildings be removed without affecting thewhole setting of the site, as well as its historical and myth-ical value? The relationship between authenticity andintegrity of a site is not always properly grasped by the sitereports. This may be linked to the lack of homogeneity inthe definitions of the two concepts.

As mentioned before, positive changes to authenticity and integrity often result from reasons similar to those proposed for renomination of a site or extension of itsboundaries.

30


© D

epar

tmen

t of

Env

ironm

ent

and

Her

itage

, Aus

tral

ia

Willandra Lakes Region, Australia

These reasons include:• archaeological and scientific discoveries;• actions undertaken to enhance a site’s authenticity and/

or integrity, such as restoration, demolition of illegal build-ings, or development of adequate protective borders.

Apart from these two reasons, positive changes in authenticity may also result in decisions to reveal more, orincrease or reduce what is visible to adapt to certain political or social objectives.

Archaeological and scientific discoveries are common to allsub-regions. Brihadisvara Temple in Thanjavur (India), theBuddhist Monuments at Sanchi (India), the Mausoleum ofthe First Qin Emperor (China), the Tubbataha Reef MarineNational Park (Philippines), and the Tasmanian Wilderness(Australia) provide good examples of improvements in theauthenticity and/or integrity of a site following archaeo-logical or scientific discoveries.

The case of the Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor inChina is a typical example of what can happen to a prop-erty following major archaeological discoveries. Ongoingexcavations in various pits identified through prior researchhave brought new discoveries concerning the lifestyle andburial practices of the Qin era. While these discoveries,such as the pit of armor and helmets, the pits of potteryacrobats, the pits of civil officials pottery, and the pits ofthe ‘Bronze Waterfowl Cave’, have undoubtedly enhancedthe authenticity of the site as a whole, they have also ledto increased visitor and infrastructural pressure. Despitethe efforts of the Provincial Government to take measuresto correct the implementation of construction and green-ing projects on-site, the construction of tourist facilitiesincompatible with the heritage protection principles estab-lished within the Mausoleum area have already startedaffecting the integrity of the site. The combined effects ofenhanced authenticity and threatened integrity or visualdeterioration to a World Heritage property are far fromrare in Asia, especially in the case of cultural heritage.

Protecting ‘Authenticity’ at South Asian WorldHeritage Properties

In John Marshall’s Conservation Manual of 1922, stillconsidered the conservationist’s bible in South Asia, hestates that ancient buildings’ “historical value is gonewhen their authenticity is destroyed, and ... our firstduty is not to renew them but to preserve them.”Unfortunately, regular maintenance remains an idealwhere most budgets allow no more than emergencyrepairs -- turning preservation activities largely intorenewal.

The present legal framework in Nepal and the countriesthat make up the former British India still refers to“archaeological monuments”, mainly ruins with no con-temporary function. Nepal’s Kathmandu Valley WorldHeritage site, however, covers living religious centres

and densely populated urban quarters in which resi-dents are not concerned with the authenticity of formor materials of their physical surroundings. Instead, theprimary emphasis is on beautification and cyclicalrenewal. There the notion of “authenticity” or “gen-uineness” is not associated with material substance,which is considered to be subject to decay. The idea ofritual renewal ensures continuity rather than persist-ence, and reflects a mythical as opposed to historicalexperience of time.

The ship of the early Greek hero Theseus often serves asa metaphor in discussions of authenticity of materialand continuity of form. The philosophical question isposed: As old planks decayed, they were replaced withfresh timber; was the ship any less “authentic”? Is gen-uineness tied to form or substance? One factor is theease with which copies can be made. A carpenter inNepal, who learned his craft from his father and grand-father, will insist on renewing a decaying rafter, joist oreven carved pillar, rather than carrying out repairs,which will be done only on the advice of a western con-sultant. The carpenter’s capability represents continuity;the result of his work is “authentic” to a degree that isbeyond the imagination and experience of the westernobserver. While the western approach to conservation isanalytical, largely characterised by detachment, Asiancraftsmen are integral to the process of renewal.

Since the early 20th century conditions have changeddramatically. As a result of land reforms, religious insti-tutions lost their endowments, which had ensured dailyworship as well as annual maintenance. With govern-ments in charge of ‘culture’, a low priority in budgetconsiderations, the integrity of form as well as sub-stance is in danger almost everywhere. In Nepal andBhutan, the integrity of living sites is even more threat-ened as houses are vacated, demolished or converted toserve touristic needs, as elsewhere in the world wherethe tourist industry seems to apply a new layer to theenvironment.

Conservation is basically a western concept that hasbeen adopted by the modern bureaucracies of statesthat have replaced traditional societies. Specific aspectsof authenticity are easily swept aside by ‘international’standards and principles. Globalisation has broughtabout a need for ongoing dialogue to ensure that thepotential of a Nepalese carpenter or an Indian mastermason might guide notions of authenticity in thefuture.

Active conservation of a World Heritage property can alsolead to enhancing the authenticity and integrity of a prop-erty. While a third of the cultural heritage propertiesdescribed in the site reports acknowledge positive changeswhich have enhanced the authenticity and/or integrity of

31


a given site, this percentage rises to 50% for natural andmixed heritage. The impact of the inscription on the WorldHeritage List is thus demonstrated as a key factor forenhanced protection of these natural properties.

Demolition of illegal structures or buildings can alsoenhance the authenticity of a site and of its near environ-ment. This is distinctly the case within the ChengdeMountain Resort and its Outlying Temples (China), whereall buildings not considered as cultural relics within theproperty’s buffer zone have been demolished. Natural her-itage properties have also strongly benefited from pro-active conservation policies. National Park (India) or theSagarmantha National Park (Nepal) have seen theirauthenticity preserved through the halting or cancellationof large infrastructural development projects. InKaziranga, the project to build a railway along the south-ern boundary of the park has been cancelled, while theproject to extend the Syangboche airstrip nearSagarmantha National Park has been temporarily halted.Dam and road constructions have also been abandoned atthe Thungyai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries (Thailand),in the Tasmanian Wilderness and within Uluru Kata Tjuta(both in Australia), thus preserving the authenticity andintegrity of these properties.

In other cases, the simple fact of inscribing the site on theWorld Heritage List has contributed to increasing the pop-ulation of rare animal and plant species. In the Nanda DeviNational Park (India), the World Heritage biodiversity isconsidered to have undergone “phenomenal improve-ment” (Periodic Report, Section II), following twenty yearsof strict protection. Similarly, the biodiversity value of theRoyal Chitwan National Park (Nepal) has considerablyimproved, with a significant increase in the population ofrhinoceroses and tigers since 1984, date of its inscriptionon the World Heritage List.

In their recommendations to the World HeritageCommittee, South Asian and South-East Asian StatesParties’ representatives have insisted on the importance oflinking tangible and intangible preservation of the authen-ticity of a World Heritage property. They have also high-lighted the dire need for the dissemination, not onlyamong site managers, but among all conservation stake-holders, of manuals, charters and guidelines for thepreservation of a site’s authenticity and integrity. Follow-upactivities to this first Periodic Reporting exercise will hope-fully contribute to disseminating these manuals, whileensuring proper consideration of the linkages betweenintangible and tangible heritage at the national and locallevels. The Advisory Bodies to the World HeritageCommittee, ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM, should be keypartners in developing adequate responses to the chal-lenges that this new policy orientation entails.

32


Heritage Legislation

33

Map of Shark Bay showing World Heritage protective zoning, Australia

© Environment Australia

3

Formal and customary protection of cultural and natural heritage in Asia and the Pacific is a complexundertaking. Whilst most States Parties in the regionhave some legal instruments to preserve their heritage, not all have a guiding policy or specific reg-ulations for the effective implementation of conser-vation actions. Fewer still have laws referring toobligations under the World Heritage Convention.Relevant legal acts and decrees have often beendrawn up to cover a diversity of objectives rangingfrom forestry to stolen antiquities, for example, andgenerally offer little specific guidance to managers,whose prime responsibility is to interpret theConvention at the site level across the Asia-Pacificregion. An urgent need therefore exists to tailornational legislation to fully reflect the WorldHeritage Convention as a pioneering legal instru-ment, capable of protecting nature as well as culture,and promoting pride in the common heritage ofhumankind whilst remaining firmly anchored innational and/or customary laws.

In recent years, the introduction of new laws on natu-ral and cultural heritage protection has accelerated inboth Asia and the Pacific and gradually covers moreadequately the many aspects of heritage conserva-tion. Many problems still remain nonetheless, and,through the answers provided by the Asia-PacificStates Parties in their Periodic Reports, one may noticegeneral trends in legislative difficulties encounteredin their efforts to implement the World HeritageConvention, be it at a national or a local, site level.

Furthermore, as well as underlining the inherent leg-islative limitations and inadequacies of many StatesParties, the information included in the nationalPeriodic Reports also provides a quick checklistexemplifying specific World Heritage legislation, aswell as referencing some of the most effective lawsand regulations at national, regional and local levels.Some examples of these will be looked at in specificcase studies. In certain States Parties, such as theMaldives or Nepal, national laws often represent theonly available heritage protection instrument. Incountries such as China, India or Australia, effectivemechanisms promoting co-ordination and dialoguebetween the multiple stratas of State administra-tion, encompassing the municipal, prefectural,provincial and federal levels, have been attemptedbut still require further strengthening.

“Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that theduty of ensuring the identification, protection, conserva-tion, presentation and transmission to future generationsof the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily tothat State.”

Article 4, World Heritage Convention

Legislative Problems Faced by StatesParties in the Implementation of the WorldHeritage Convention

In the context of accelerating threats and risks to naturaland cultural properties, many of the Periodic Reportsunderline the fact that existing legislative and administra-tive provisions and measures are insufficient to tackle con-temporary problems. In many countries, legislation isoutdated or obsolete and needs to be revised so as to bemore effective and integrate the increasing complexitythat the management of World Heritage represents and/or the difficulties arising from the provision for a greaternumber of properties. Furthermore, some States Parties,especially recent signatories to the Convention in thePacific Region, are faced with a total lack of specific heritage conservation legislation.

Another trend in the difficulties encountered by Asia-Pacific States Parties is the lack of conservation or man-agement facilities to effectively implement legislation. Thisproblem varies greatly from State Party to State Party as itmay be the consequence of historical factors, such as inthe case of Afghanistan whose troubled past has hinderedthe development of adequate facilities, or of increasedsecurity and monitoring issues arising from developmentpressures or increased tourism, in the case of Indian WorldHeritage properties for example. Many States Parties havecalled for a better definition of planning and constructionpermits, land ownership issues and strengthening ofpenalties for the degradation of World Heritage proper-ties, resulting from illegal destruction, constructions andencroachments within these properties. They call for morespecific laws, which would tackle particular issues in detail.They have also underlined the human and financial limita-tions and inadequacies they face regarding the reinforce-ment of existing legislation and the formulation of newlaws. This is particularly relevant for natural heritage prop-erties, which face poaching, illegal fishing and tree fellingproblems.

Furthermore, some States Parties have called for the pro-motion of collaborative management, a fact that under-lines the lack of communication between the differentinstitutions responsible for legislative implementation. Inthe majority of cases, co-ordination between concernedMinistries and the different levels of administrationresponsible for the enforcement of laws, regulations anddecrees remains insufficient and needs to be addressed.The lack of or feeble participation and consultation of localauthorities is a recurrent theme and many States Partiescall for greater decentralisation measures which wouldenable local, regional and provincial authorities to have agreater say and role in the creation and implementation ofadequate legislation.

34

Heritage Legislation3

Australian World Heritage Laws

In 1983, Australia was the first State Party in the Asia-Pacific region to pass a specific law relating to WorldHeritage properties. This World Heritage ConservationAct (WHPC) enabled the Australian Commonwealth toestablish regulations aimed to protect Australia’s WorldHeritage properties from threatening actions. This legis-lation, in effect, operated as a last resort mechanism forstopping specific actions. Then the EnvironmentProtection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EBPC)adopted in 1999, and implemented as from July 2000,replaced and significantly improved the provision forheritage preservation and conservation allowed by theWHPC Act.

In the spirit of Australian World Heritage managementprinciples (promotion of national standards of manage-ment, planning, environmental impact assessment,community involvement and monitoring), the EBPC is anoutstanding example of heritage conservation legisla-tion. Indeed, it is very detailed and provides an exten-sive legal framework for the conservation of WorldHeritage properties as well as national heritage proper-ties. It is original in as much as it allows preventive aswell as reactive protection. Thus, it ensures that an envi-ronmental impact assessment is undertaken for pro-posed actions that will, or are likely to, have significantimpact on a given World Heritage property. Upon thisassessment the Commonwealth Environment Ministermay grant or refuse approval as well as impose condi-tions to regulate actions taken.

It also covers properties which have been nominatedfor, but not yet inscribed on the World Heritage List sothat they may be legally protected as part of the EBPC.Properties which have not been nominated for WorldHeritage listing but which are considered by theCommonwealth Environment Minister to contain threat-ened World Heritage values are also included.

Among other features, the EBPC aims to promote eco-logically sustainable development and respect the rightsof native populations living within World Heritage prop-erties, as well as involve them actively in the preserva-tion of such sites. Furthermore, this Act provides aholistic legal framework for the identification and moni-toring of biodiversity (including genetic material), thecontrol of non-native species, the provision of aid toother countries, staff-related matter, etc. It also imposessubstantial civil and criminal penalties on anyone whotakes unlawful action and is thus effectively linked tothe criminal code.

Furthermore, the EBPC Act has encouraged effective co-operation between the Australian Government andState Governments. It has created a mechanism forthese to enter bi-lateral agreements in order to achieve

the requirements of the Act and to avoid potential repetitions within regulatory and / or administrativeprocesses.

The EBPC Act was amended in 2003 by the FederalParliament. The passage of this heritage legislationthrough Parliament followed extensive consultation overseven years with government, non-government, indus-trial and community bodies, and involved discussionpapers, technical workshops, a ‘National HeritageConvention’ held in 1998, and more than 70 briefingsheld nationwide. Although this new, amended act con-cerns essentially national heritage, it is important tomention the creation of the Australian Heritage Council.This council constitutes an independent expert body,which advises the Minister on the listing and protectionof heritage sites.

Positive Actions Undertaken to RemedyLegislative Problems Faced by StatesParties

As a consequence of the Periodic Reporting exercise, theWorld Heritage Centre hopes that continued and regularcollection of legal documents will enable the creation ofan Internet database to share examples of effective lawsand regulations between States Parties in the Asia-PacificRegion and beyond. Although each country in the regionhas its own blend of legislation, ratification of the WorldHeritage Convention has expanded the pool of sharedexperience, as well as the commitment towards heritageprotection. In this regard, a number of important prece-dents in international collaboration are taking placebetween States Parties, especially in the case of trans-boundary natural nominations which transcend bordersbetween neighbouring countries in South-East Asia, suchas on the island of Borneo, between Malaysia andIndonesia; and in South Asia in the case of a site coveringareas in Bhutan, India and Bangladesh.

35

Heritage Legislation 3

© D

epar

tmen

t of

env

ironm

ent

and

Her

itage

,G

over

nmen

t of

Aus

tral

ia

Aerial view of Lord Howe Island, Australia

Local Involvement in the Protection of WorldHeritage in Japan

Japan has a very long-lasting heritage conservation andpreservation tradition. The body of laws which coversthese issues is thus very developed and detailed.Furthermore, Japan is a very important advocate of andcontributor to World Heritage preservation on an inter-national scale as well as being a signatory to many dif-ferent international treaties relevant to these matters.

What is particularly interesting in the case of Japan isthe important role the National Government entrustsupon provincial and local authorities in the manage-ment of World Heritage and national heritage proper-ties and the latter’s involvement in the formulation oflegislative texts and recommendations. This entailsextensive co-ordination on many different levels, a feature many States Parties underlined as being prob-lematic in their efforts to manage World Heritage conservation.

After the conclusion of the World Heritage Convention,the Government established the World HeritageInterdepartmental Conference, composed of ministriesand other government agencies related to the enforce-ment of the convention (Ministry of Foreign Affairs,Agency for Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Environment,Forestry Agency and Ministry of Land, Infrastructureand Transport). Through this organisation, theGovernment is ensuring liaison and co-ordinationbetween the concerned ministries and governmentagencies. This World Heritage InterdepartmentalConference is a particularly important instrument in theeffective communication and co-ordination of actionsand legal harmonisation between the different levels ofnational administration.

Co-ordination is not, however, only carried out at ahigher, national level. Indeed, it is pervasive of thewhole system. In the case of natural World Heritageproperties, for example, the government has set up a‘World Heritage Area Liaison Committee’ for each prop-erty to maintain liaison and co-ordination between theMinistry of Environment, the Forestry Agency and localauthorities (prefectural / municipal / township / villageadministration) and thus to ensure a more efficientmanagement. This committee gathers relevant officialsregularly, once a year, to discuss related matters andthus co-ordinate and promote the most appropriateconservation and management measures.

Local authorities have a central role in Japanese WorldHeritage policy. This is true especially in the case ofnominations. Each local / provincial authority has itsown Tentative List and suggests potential sites of uni-versal value; “local authorities play the major role in thepreparatory process for the designation of CulturalProperties based on the Law for the Protection of

Cultural Heritage, and also take lead deciding uponHeritage Areas in consultation with relevant nationaladministrative agencies and provincial authorities”.(Periodic Report, Section I)

Furthermore, local inhabitants are also consulted andvoice their claims and ideas through locally based WorldHeritage Associations. This feature increases the generalinvolvement of the public in matters regarding the pro-motion and the management of its national heritage.

Finally, concerning natural heritage protected areas, Art.25 of the Basic Environment Law, provides a frameworkin which the national government is expected to takethe necessary steps to deepen the general public’sunderstanding of the necessity for environmental con-servation by promoting education and study, and bycarrying out sufficient publicity activities. In addition,the government has designated and announcedConservation Areas based on the Nature ConservationLaw and the Natural Parks Law, and has been conduct-ing environmental education in schools and visitor centers in natural parks. It has also been promotinginformation dissemination activities through publicationof booklets and publicity journals.

The result of these measures, provisions, and legislativeand institutional framework is an effective mechanismwhich ensures the positive promotion, conservation andmanagement of World Heritage in Japan, and the possi-bility for a variety of effective international assistance inthis domain.

A number of innovative legal instruments and mechanismsare also being applied. Australia, the first country todevelop a World Heritage-specific legislation, namely theWorld Heritage Properties Conservation Act, established in1983, has recently updated its Commonwealth (national)legislation through the introduction of the EnvironmentProtection & Biodiversity Conservation Act, drafted in1999 and implemented in the year 2000. Sri Lanka, whichforged the National Heritage & Wilderness Act for the

36


© A

genc

y fo

r C

ultu

ral A

ffai

rs, G

over

nmen

t of

Jap

an

Presentation of the eastern imperial audience hall andimperial domicile at the Ancient City of Nara, Japan

protection of World Heritage properties in 1988, hasemphasised the need for further consolidation of inter-departmental co-operation processes in its national periodic report. In 2001, China introduced a set of‘Conservation Principles’ to be applied to all cultural heritage sites in the country.

Most encouragingly, Japan, Vietnam and the Lao People’sDemocratic Republic have succeeded in promulgating newinstruments for the inter-Ministerial consideration ofWorld Heritage matters at the national level. Japan hasdeveloped a ‘World Heritage Inter-departmentalConference’, a deliberation council of five governmentagencies – including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,Agency for Cultural Affairs, Forestry Agency, Ministry ofthe Environment, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure& Transport – held regularly to discuss and co-ordinatematters relating to World Heritage nominations and to themanagement of World Heritage properties. In connectionwith a revised Law on Cultural Heritage, Vietnam launchedin 2001 an innovative ‘National Heritage Council’ directlyunder the Prime Minister’s responsibility. In Laos, the 1997Law on Heritage established a national inter-ministerialcommittee, and, at the local level, an inter-departmentalheritage committee was established to specifically protectthe two World Heritage properties of Laos.

Sri Lanka’s Cultural Triangle

“The cultural triangle has to be preserved for the sakeof Sri Lanka, since it forms part of the country’s histori-cal core and gives supreme expression to its religiousvalues […] it must be preserved for the sake of Asia as awhole for it is a center of Buddhist tradition […] andhas heightened the sense of Asian solidarity. It must bepreserved for the sake of the world at large since itforms an integral part of its indivisible heritage.” (The safeguarding of the Cultural Triangle of Sri Lanka:steady progress and future prospects, by R. Silva andAnanda W. P. Guruge, UNESCO-Sri Lanka publication)

Sri Lanka’s cultural triangle is situated in the centre ofthe island and covers an area which includes the WorldHeritage cultural sites of the Sacred City ofAnurahapura, the Ancient City of Polonnaruwa, theAncient City of Sigiriya, the Ancient City of Dambullaand the Sacred City of Kandy. These sites are of highuniversal value and are visited by many monks and pil-grims as well as by national and foreign tourists.

The Cultural Triangle programme, which started in1978, is a national umbrella programme, which servesas the main legal and practical conservation frameworkfor these sites. It ensures the positive co-ordination ofinternational funding appeals and educational pro-grammes, and is the focus of the legal frameworks pro-tecting these sites. Furthermore, it works in closeco-operation with UNESCO, the World Heritage Centreand an International Working group composed of

specialists who offer their expertise for the efficient pro-tection and restoration of these sites.

The Central Cultural Fund (CCF) manages the CulturalTriangle Campaign, which aims to support this ambi-tious conservation programme. The CCF is managed bya board of governors, chaired by the Prime Minister andincludes, amongst its members, the ministers of culturalaffairs, finance, tourism, socio-cultural integration,Hindu affairs and Muslim affairs. It also monitors andmanages activities and projects in these sites and carriesout excavation, conservation, preservation and mainte-nance programmes.

Despite the exemplary nature of this co-ordinated pro-gramme, many concerns yet remain to be addressedwithin the next few years. Indeed, the discrepanciesbetween legal texts and their actual implementation arevery real. Legally, these sites are protected by the 1988Cultural Property Act No. 73, the 1956 AntiquitiesOrdinance and the Urban Development Law. The effec-tiveness of these texts, and especially of the latter,needs evaluation and has been called into questionmany times, especially in the report of a UNESCO /World Heritage Centre monitoring Mission, in 1994:“Principles, procedures and techniques relevant to exca-vation and conservation are available but not necessarilyin written form. A proper mechanism to apply the law isyet to develop”. Furthermore, questions have beenasked regarding the CCF’s independence, and reportsindicate that properties in the Cultural Triangle have suf-fered from vandalism and from projects which do notmeet World Heritage Centre guidelines on authenticity.The authorities have underlined the need for the intro-duction of stricter and more efficient penalties.

Vietnamese Heritage Legislation

When the Socialist Republic of Vietnam joined theWorld Heritage Convention in 1987, it “was anothermilestone in an age-old tradition of commitment by thegovernment and people to the underlying spirit of thisinternational instrument, expressed in Vietnam as a cel-ebration of the complementarity of nature and cultureand the integration of conservation with the life of thecommunity” (Periodic Reporting, Section I). Indeed,Vietnam has a long-lasting tradition of heritage preser-vation, which developed during French colonisation.

Since joining the Convention, the legislative frameworkfor heritage preservation has developed. The presentVietnamese Constitution, which was adopted in 1993,extensively discusses heritage conservation and empha-sises the essential value of culture for the nation’s citi-zens.

37


The constitutional provisions for heritage preservationwere complemented by the adoption of the Law onCultural Heritage in 2001. This law is broadly based onthe World Heritage Convention and the OperationalGuidelines and, thus, provides an interesting precedentin the creation of efficient legislative frameworks for thepositive protection of heritage in Asia.

This Law on Cultural Heritage exhaustively covers differ-ent types of heritage (including buried and immersedheritage), regulates archaeological excavations, trade incultural property, conservation, preservation and reha-bilitation works, registration and classification of poten-tial sites of local, regional, national and universal value,staff matters, etc. It also ensures an adequate definitionof boundaries and buffer zones, a feature rarely men-tioned in Asian heritage legislation.

Furthermore, it underlines the specific attention, whichis paid to World Heritage by the Vietnamese authorities.Indeed, nomination dossiers for sites, which may be ofpotential universal value and consequently submittedfor inscription on the World Heritage List, are to bereviewed by the Prime Minister himself.

This legislation responds to the specific threats faced byVietnamese World Heritage properties, which ariseessentially from tourism pressures. Indeed, tourism is animportant feature in the Vietnamese economy and it isconsequently essential to ensure efficient cultural con-servation and respect of the World HeritageConvention. The Law on Cultural Heritage thus providesan exemplary legislative framework. It is, however,important to underline the discrepancies between thecontent of this law and its actual implementation.Indeed, due to lax enforcement and especially due tothe lack of effective co-operation between the numer-ous bodies responsible for its implementation, the effec-tiveness of this laudable piece of legislation needs to besomewhat tempered.

At the provincial and local scales, other good practicecases include the introduction of a World Heritage-specificlaw in the Chinese Sichuan Province. Municipal-levelinstruments have also been developed for World Heritagehistoric cities in South-East Asia. In Luang Prabang in Laosfor example, support from the European Union and theFrench Development Agency, mobilised by the WorldHeritage Centre, has led to the enactment of protectivelegislation, urban conservation regulations, and institu-tional mechanisms to monitor public and private works.Furthermore a ‘Heritage House’, a heritage advisory serv-ice within the local government was established to helpthe local community monitor building permits and her-itage-based development.

To support the conservation of privately-owned property inthe World Heritage protected area in the historic urbancentre, and to enable traditional residents to remain intheir abodes despite onerous conservation obligations,innovative systems of loans and subsidies, as well as abank of traditional building material have been developedunder municipal management in Hue, Vietnam and LuangPrabang, Laos. Both these Asian World Heritage cities havebenefited from a long-term, sustainable technical supportthrough the decentralised co-operation scheme of city-to-city co-operation, respectively with the French localauthorities of Lille-Metropolis and Chinon. Similar decen-tralised co-operation between Asian and European citieshave also been developed by the World Heritage Centrefor municipal authority capacity-building in heritage man-agement.

The ‘China Principles’ for World HeritageProtection

China signed the World Heritage Convention in 1985following the recent promulgation of a new constitu-tion in 1982, in which the basic principles for the cre-ation and adoption of legislation for heritageconservation (art. 20, 22) was formulated. TheConvention, together with the 1964 Venice Charter forthe Conservation and Restoration of Monuments andSites, has provided a very good framework from whichthe authorities have been inspired to promote and pro-tect heritage throughout the country. Both these inter-national legal instruments have, however, rarely beensatisfactorily complemented by specific, detailednational laws and thus compose an integral and essen-tial part of the Chinese legal provision for heritagepreservation.

Concerning cultural heritage, specific legislation hasbeen passed, such as the Law on the Protection ofCultural Relics in China in 1982, which was later com-plemented by detailed rules for its implementation in1992. These ‘Principles for the Conservation of HeritageSites in China’ equate to professional guidelines, withinexisting legal frameworks, which aim to provide a pro-fessional explanation of the relevant articles of Chinese

38

Heritage Legislation3©

UN

ESC

O /

L. R

ampo

n

Illegal constructions marring the traditionalskyline of the Citadel of Hue, Vietnam

laws and regulations on the protection of cultural her-itage. They also form the professional basis for dealingwith matters related to heritage sites. However, the spe-cific roles of the Central and Local Governments in her-itage protection are somewhat unclear and many sitespecific reports call for a greater definition of these rolesand a better co-ordination between different agenciesresponsible for the implementation and formulation oflaws. Furthermore, concerning World Heritage proper-ties in particular, there exists no specific legal frame-work. Their protection has been integrated into theRural and Urban Plans relevant to their site location asdefined by the City Planning Act of 1989. This remainssomewhat of a weak point and a strong need for spe-cific World Heritage laws has been outlined.

In this context it is important to point out the co-opera-tion and subsequent Memorandum of Understandingbetween Australia and China, which strives to exchangemanagement expertise, technologies, evaluation meth-ods, laws and regulations, etc. in terms of cultural her-itage conservation between these two countries. Thispartnership has been significantly reinforced throughextensive co-operation between the Chinese StateAdministration for Cultural Heritage (SACH), theAustralia Heritage Commission and the GettyConservation Institute (GCI). Together they developedthe ‘China Principles’, which aim to answer the above-mentioned legal limitations. Indeed, China has had nonational charter or set of guidelines for conservationand management of its cultural heritage, even though ithas an outstanding cultural legacy and a long-lastingtradition of conservation and restoration practice.

This set of principles, inspired by the World HeritageConvention and the Operational Guidelines for itsimplementation, outlines a variety of objectives:• To develop national guidelines for conservation and

management of cultural heritage sites in China, result-ing in an informed and integrated approach to con-servation practice;

• To promote the guidelines within China and applythem at selected sites as part of a dissemination andadoption strategy;

• To enhance the role of ICOMOS China; • To provide a model for countries in the region; and• To better understand traditional approaches and

methods concerning conservation and managementof cultural heritage sites.

These ‘China Principles’ are a very good example of effi-cient and productive co-operation and have allowed theChinese authorities to practically build upon a previouslyincomplete and difficultly applicable legal framework.They also reflect the many issues which the Governmenthas to face in an age of increased connectedness: rapideconomic development, social and geographical mobil-ity, increase in both local and foreign tourism, etc.

Similar problems apply in the case of natural heritageconservation. The complexity of management, due tothe number of stakeholders whose responsibility andobligations are not legally defined, calls for the enact-ment of practical and applicable laws. ConcerningWorld Heritage properties, yet again, there are no spe-cific policies for natural and mixed sites. It seems inter-esting to underline the original regulations promulgatedby the Sichuan Province in 1994. Indeed, theRegulations concerning the places of interest in Sichuanprovide detailed guidelines regarding protection andmanagement of heritage in this province. These regula-tions seem to cater to natural heritage only, but do soefficiently. This legal document is divided in seven chap-ters, each covering a specific area of natural heritageconservation; establishment and definition of places ofinterest, protection, planning (including the need tocarry out feasibility studies before any action is under-taken in a given site), construction (details the processof obtaining permits and licenses), management anddisciplinary measures. This comprehensive law is exem-plary and could, in the future, provide the basis forwider, national laws and regulations.

The ‘Heritage House’ in Luang Prabang (Lao PDR)

The World Heritage site of Luang Prabang, Laos, aprime example of the fusion of two distinct cultural tra-ditions, was inscribed onto the World Heritage List in1995. It provides a good example of the evolution oflegislative measures implemented to protect, conserveand rehabilitate a site of priceless and irreplaceableworth to humankind. It is particularly relevant asregards the distribution of construction and destructionpermits and as an example of the positive consequencesof decentralised co-operation.

39


© F

. Eng

elm

ann

Heritage House in Luang Prabang, Lao PDR

Implementation of the World HeritageConvention: Legislative Aspects

Despite having ratified the World Heritage Convention in1987, Laotian law made no specific provision for naturaland cultural heritage protection, other than that inher-ited from French colonial rule, until 1993. In Novemberof that year a Ministerial Decree was issued which gaveresponsibility for the management and restoration ofnational heritage to the Ministry of Information andCulture, and entrusted the co-ordination between differ-ent governmental bodies to this institution.

The inscription of Luang Prabang in 1995 motivated theadoption of laws dealing in a more satisfactory waywith heritage conservation and preservation. Indeed,the previous decree did not offer any indications as tohow to settle potential conflicts or how to co-ordinateactions efficiently.

Further decrees, at various levels of government, thustook into account the limitations of previous legislationand provided more specific guidelines and better co-ordination and consultation mechanisms such as thecreation of Local Heritage Committees to monitor con-servation works at a site level.

The ‘Heritage House’ and the ‘Plan de Sauvegardeet de Mise en Valeur’ of Luang Prabang

One of the most positive events in the development ofLuang Prabang as a World Heritage property was thedecentralised co-operation project between this city andthat of Chinon, France, which took place in August1996, within the Asia Urbs programme, sponsored byUNESCO and the European Union.

Within this project, the ‘Heritage House’ was founded.Its mission is four-fold:• First, it informs and raises awareness among the local

population through training seminars, publicationsand exhibitions;

• Secondly, it regulates urban development through thesupervision of building and demolition activities (byissuing construction permits for example), by suggest-ing relevant regulations, laws, guidelines, etc. to vari-ous governmental authorities, by providing inventoriesof national heritage and by drafting the ‘Plan deSauvegarde et de Mise en Valeur du Patrimoine’(PSMV), the Conservation and Development Plan forthe property;

• Thirdly, it ensures an operational urban developmentthrough the provision of expertise, funds or the freedistribution of construction materials to the local pop-ulation. “Contracts bind villages with the ‘HeritageHouse’. Villagers receive services and constructionmaterials from the ‘Heritage House’ and in return […]actively participate to the conservation programme.”(Periodic Report, Section II);

• Finally, it is the recipient agency for international assistance.

It is under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Authority forthe Preservation of Historical, Cultural and NaturalHeritage and is financed partly by InternationalAssistance, government funds and especially through atourism tax.

The role of the ‘Heritage House’ was reinforced inDecember 2000 through a Provincial Decree on the cre-ation of a specialised Committee for construction permitattribution and in January 2001 by the creation, withinthe same body, of an organism controlling constructionand restoration works. These were created as part ofthe amended PSMV, which provided a new legislativeframework for the conservation of heritage

Indeed, the legislative provision included in theamended PSMV is exemplary in many ways. It pro-vides a detailed description of the role of the twoabove-mentioned committees and their capacities toimplement these regulations, to impart correctivemeasures and punishments. It also describes the co-operation mechanisms, on a local scale, between thedifferent interested parties including ‘village chiefs’.The regulations cover both private and public prop-erty and take into account the necessity of publicinfrastructural development in the face of increasedtourism and urban pressure. (PSMV article 3.1, 3.2and 3.3)

It does not only provide a framework for the pro-tected World Heritage and national zones but alsofor the general urban plan of the city, includingwaterways, hotel, restaurant and swimming poolconstruction, religious and public buildings, the par-tial or total destruction of a building, enclosures, etc.

Joint UNESCO/ICOMOS Mission to LuangPrabang, 23–28 April 2002 and the SubsequentImplementation of the 8 Corrective Measures

The UNESCO World Heritage Centre staff undertooka Joint Mission to Luang Prabang together with ICOMOS experts between the 23rd and 28th of April2002. It commented positively on the amendedPSMV and recommended its rapid implementation.In their site specific report, the Laotian authoritiesconfirmed the prompt enactment of the PSMV byprime ministerial ordinance and its coming enforce-ment as the most important legal text for the conser-vation of Luang Prabang.

The mission also outlined 8 recommendations whichillustrate the contrast between the quality of legisla-tive texts and their implementation in reality: • Better control of illicit destruction by the ‘Heritage

House’;

40


• Respect of the law by all; • Better awareness of the PSMV for local population; • Better awareness of PSMV for private and public

companies; • Stopping public works which go against PSMV

regulations; • Creating favourable conditions for the implementa-

tion of the PSMV; • Better public spaces management;• Establishment of a fund to assist local inhabitants.

These recommendations were reiterated during theUNESCO seminar regarding conservation of LuangPrabang, which took place on 26 December 2002.

The case of Luang Prabang is particularly interestingsince it illustrates well the tensions between mod-ernisation and conservation, which take place inmost inhabited World Heritage properties. The legalprovisions established by the Laos authorities in thePSMV are particularly good and suited to the situa-tion, especially with regards to construction anddemolition permits and the supervision of works inand out of the protected areas. However, these reg-ulations need to be applied, and local inhabitantsmade more aware of their content.

Increasing attention is given to the relationship betweenthe World Heritage Convention and other internationalconservation instruments and actions, including the follow-up to the ‘World Summit on SustainableDevelopment’ held in Johannesburg, South Africa, inSeptember 2002, and to the major objectives of theUnited Nations as a whole. A new, cross-cutting, thematicprogramme regarding the contributions of the WorldHeritage Convention to poverty alleviation has beenlaunched. This programme includes a number of casesdrawn from the Asian Region.

The 5th ‘World Parks Congress’, held in Durban, SouthAfrica, in September 2003, recognised the importance ofthe World Heritage Convention as a “highly effective inter-national instrument […] to protect the world's outstand-ing natural and cultural heritage”. Furthermore, it is hopedthat the pivotal role of natural World Heritage propertiesas model protected areas will be conveyed to the‘Conference of the Parties of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity’ (CBD) to be held in September 2004. In thisregard, a number of natural World Heritage properties inAsia, including Ujung Kulong and Komodo National Parksin Indonesia, have received assistance from the WorldHeritage Centre, together with other donors, to promoteexemplary and replicable management models for biodi-versity conservation.

In line with the broader objectives of the World HeritageConvention, each State Party in the Asia-Pacific region hasintended to co-ordinate and make use of all available sci-entific, technical and legal resources for the protection of heritage. In this regard, the ‘UNESCO RegionalConsultation Meeting of Asian States Parties on thePeriodic Reporting’, held in Paris, France in March 2003,emphasised the application of the 1972 UNESCORecommendation concerning the Protection of theCultural and Natural Heritage at the National Level. Torespond to the recommendations formulated by the StatesParties, an important component of the follow-up to thecurrent Periodic Reporting exercise must include assistancefor the systematic review and strengthening of thenational legal framework for the protection of WorldHeritage and heritage of national importance throughoutthe Asia-Pacific region.

41


Threats and Risks to World Heritage Properties

43

Lumbini, Birthplace of the Buddha, Nepal

© UNESCO / J.Okahashi

4

The World Heritage Convention seeks to protect nat-ural and cultural properties against the increasingthreat of damage in a rapidly developing world. No region is developing more rapidly than the Asia-Pacific region, home to 147 of the 754 WorldHeritage properties. It is also one of the world’s rich-est regions in both natural and cultural propertiesand includes many of the most sought-after touristdestinations. The Convention underscores the factthat physical cultural heritage and, in many cases,natural heritage is a non-renewable, irreplaceableresource. More and more, properties are at risk ofdegradation as a direct or indirect result of urbanisa-tion, natural resource exploitation, populationgrowth, pollution and other phenomena of modernindustrial civilisation. Theft of art and archaeologicalmaterial has become a major international industry;petty theft and vandalism are also common threatsto cultural properties. Properties are menaced bywater, chemicals, insects, rodents or other pests,plants and micro-organisms, any number of whichmay cause damage or deterioration. A property’sphysical and cultural integrity also faces an array ofindirect threats: atmospheric pollution, traffic vibra-tion, encroachment and intrusive commercial devel-opment. To these threats are added natural disasters,some of which are caused by unsustainable and envi-ronmentally harmful human practices, and armedconflict. With eight properties on the List of WorldHeritage in Danger (six cultural and two natural andmixed), Asia and the Pacific is the second region afterAfrica with the most endangered properties.

For these reasons, site management must take intoaccount local and national plans, forecasts of demo-graphic growth or decline, economic factors, trafficprojections, industrial zoning and preventive meas-ures to mitigate various types of manmade and natural disasters. Successful protection and mainte-nance require continuous assessment, inventory,information management, research and adminis-

tration. It is this process that guarantees a WorldHeritage property’s survival as a sustainableresource. A key element of the process is planningfor sustainable tourism, starting with sound legisla-tion and regulatory measures that ensure theintegrity of protected areas. The Periodic Reportingexercise has provided a good opportunity for sitemanagers, as well as local and national authorities,to identify or update the threats and risks that theyconsider most problematic for the conservation andpreservation of World Heritage properties undertheir responsibility. The questions included inSection II of the Periodic Report did not aim to merelyprovide a list of threats; their purpose was also toeffectively assess these threats. The purpose of thischapter is to identify categories of threats and risks,to highlight national and sub-regional trends, and topresent adaptable solutions to adequately mitigateand prevent these threats.

The Scars of Civil War and Armed Conflict

The effects of decades of armed conflict in Cambodia thatleft the magnificent 400 sq km site of the Angkorian citiesto the precarious forces of nature and to the risk of one ofthe world’s largest concentration of landmines, is perhapsone of the most well-known cases of an endangered site.But the long years of war and civil conflict in theIndochinese peninsula have also left their mark on Hue,the ancient capital of unified Vietnam, and on My Son, theawesome sanctuary of the Champa Kingdom of the 4th to13th century. Testimonies of aerial bombings and bulletholes on the imperial palaces of the Nguyen Dynasty, aswell as warning signs announcing the possible presence ofundetonated explosives in the forests surrounding the MySon Sanctuary, serve to remind the local inhabitants andthe growing number of visitors of the ravages of war.Likewise in Laos, the impact of the secret war which led toan average of one planeload of bombs dropped everyeight minutes, 24 hours a day for nine years have trans-

44

Threats and Risks to World Heritage Properties4

© U

NES

CO

/ J.

Tan

iguc

hi

Bamiyan cliff including niches of the Giant Buddhas and surrounding caves, Afghanistan

formed the hills of northern Laos into dangerous territoriesof dormant explosives. Eco-tourism associated with theWorld Heritage Town of Luang Prabang, the ancient capi-tal of the first Lao kingdom, and with the Plain of Jars, themegalithic site on the national Tentative List, can bringemployment and development to the hill tribes who rep-resent the majority of the population of the Northernprovinces. Yet, dangers of the lethal weapons remaininsufficiently attended by the world community which hasnow turned its attention to other, more recent conflicts.

The Complex of Hue Monuments, Vietnam

Established as the capital of unified Vietnam in 1802,Hue was not only the political centre, but also the cul-tural and religious centre of the Nguyen dynasty untilthe end of the Second World War. The Perfume Riverwinds its way through the Capital City, the Imperial City,the Forbidden Purple City and the Inner City, and pro-vides this unique feudal capital with an outstandingbackdrop.

Although Hue and its surroundings have not beeninscribed as a cultural landscape, they reflect a coherentand well-planned architectural pattern partly based onFeng Shui, the Chinese art of geomancy. Unfortunately,existing legislative and managerial preservation mecha-nisms are insufficient to address the conservation chal-lenges of the entire cultural landscape of Hue. Thissituation is exacerbated by the rapid economic develop-ment of Vietnam and of the Hue province in particular.

In November 2003, a UNESCO Expert Mission was sentto advise the Government of Vietnam and the WorldHeritage Centre on measures to improve the protectionand conservation of the Hue World Heritage property,as well as to revive international cooperation. Theresulting report concentrated particularly on the historicCitadel, which was significantly affected by militaryoperations in 1968.

The mission report acknowledged the efforts under-taken by the Hue municipality in preserving the monu-mental heritage of the property. It also insisted on therisks of planned road developments along the PerfumeRiver and in the vicinity of the Hue Citadel. Although itis not located within the property’s buffer zone, thisinfrastructural development may threaten the property’sauthenticity and integrity in the future by increasing thevehicular traffic in and around the Citadel and increas-ing noise pollution. The need to accommodate increas-ing numbers of tourists has led to illegal constructionaround the old Citadel and within the new city, marringthe traditional urban fabric and leading to the destruc-tion of typical colonial and garden houses.

The ‘Heritage House’ was set up with support fromUNESCO and the European Union in 2000 to inform the

local populations and raise awareness on heritagerelated issues, as well as to advise them on building anddemolition regulations. However, due to the lack of offi-cial government support and the inadequacies of current building regulations for this World Heritageproperty, the ‘Heritage House’ cannot effectively play itsdesignated role.

Among the measures urgently recommended by theUNESCO mission, the following may contribute to anintegrated approach towards the threats increasinglyaffecting the property’s aesthetic values: • A survey of illicit constructions in and around the

Citadel will enable an identification of business andtourism infrastructure needs;

• A master plan needs to be drawn up urgently, andconceived in a form adapted specifically to the localconditions and characteristics;

• Complementary regulations relating to the use ofpublic space and sanitary provisions are required tosupport the potential master plan.

In Afghanistan, past bombings and land-mines litteredacross the country during the decades of war and foreignoccupation, followed by one fratricide conflict afteranother, have prevented the protection and conservationof the nation’s extraordinary wealth of cultural sites. Theirpillage and wanton destruction continue, outlasting themomentary coverage of the world press and media shakenby the iconoclastic attacks on the Bamiyan Buddhas.Beyond the reaches of the TV crews and foreign corre-spondents are local armed conflicts, such as those whichraged in Tajikistan for years, leading to raids of archaeo-logical sites which should one day rank among other sitesof outstanding universal value.

The industry of war has also led to other indirect threats oncultural sites, such as those related to the presence of fac-tories manufacturing armed tankers or simply the barracksof armed forces. The vast site of Taxila, in Pakistan, illus-trating the different stages in the development of theIndus Valley civilisation, and later an important centre ofBuddhist teaching from the 5th century BC to the 2nd cen-tury AD, harboured for many years the bulwark of the warin Afghanistan.

Religious and ethnic tension in multi-cultural societies in SriLanka, amongst other countries in Asia, have also given riseto deliberate acts of destruction, such as the 1998 bomb-ing of the Temple of the Tooth Relic in the Sacred City ofKandy. The potential dangers associated with the expan-sion of the military airstrip at the foot of Lion’s Peak in theAncient City of Sigiriya, also in Sri Lanka, led UNESCO todissuade the government from this option. Should thepresent peace process hold, the wonderful sites of theCultural Triangle, joining five of the nation’s other WorldHeritage cultural properties, would certainly lead to moretourism development in this island of legendary glory.

45

Threats and Risks to World Heritage Properties 4

Apart from the accidental or intentional destruction of cul-tural and natural heritage, armed conflict and civil unresthave led to increased looting of archaeological remainsduring the last 30 years. West-Central Asian and South-East Asian countries are primarily concerned by theft, illegal excavations and trafficking of cultural heritage.Afghanistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, and Cambodia, amongothers, face tremendous pressure from organised lootingnetworks linked to the international art market. These ille-gal activities can also be carried out by local populations,tourists and pilgrims.

When does an ongoing risk become a defined threat, andwhen does a known threat eventually become a crisis?Identification of threats, as has been attempted above, isan essential component of any risk mitigation scheme, beit preventive or reactive. Past examples, such as Angkor inCambodia, show that one of the first actions to be under-taken in such situations is de-mining. Ensuring the securityof site staff, and protecting the site against potential loot-ers, are also key factors in allowing a property to recoverfrom the impacts of war. Nonetheless, this process is oftenlong and arduous.

Mitigating Environmental Pressures andNatural Disasters

For all World Heritage properties, environmental pressuresrepresent the third most significant threat (19% ofresponses for cultural heritage and 16% for natural andmixed heritage). Although environmental pressures are ofdiverse origins, States Parties have identified three majorcategories: polluting industries or activities; the combinedaction of water, salt and sand on preserved sites; andinvading fauna and flora.

The development of polluting industries near WorldHeritage properties entail environmental problems whichneed to be addressed at site level as well as on a local andregional scale, mainly through adequate and effectiveawareness raising campaigns. North-East Asian sites areparticularly at risk from mining, other heavily pollutingindustries, and related waste management issues. NaturalWorld Heritage properties, especially marine biodiversityspots, face oil spillage and water quality problems. Heavytraffic is yet another polluting activity affecting the region’sheritage.

Changing natural conditions also impact negatively onWorld Heritage monuments. West Central Asian StatesParties recognised during a regional consultation meeting(Paris, March 2003), that increases in humidity levels, aswell as the erosive effect of sandstorms and airborne salts,could eventually destabilise the foundations of their mon-uments. For natural heritage, these risks are only men-tioned twice, in the case of the Sunderbans National Park(India) and the Kakadu National Park (Australia). Both suf-fer from increasing levels of mangrove salinity, which inturn affects the local fauna and flora.

Natural disasters, weathering and attacks by animals orplants have always been a risk to the preservation of builtheritage. Such factors have been reported to be the pri-mary threat to natural and mixed properties, and the sec-ond to cultural properties.

All five sub-regions are subject to seismic activity, withSouth Asia particularly at risk. Although a risk for manyproperties, earthquakes are a real threat to only a few, forwhom an emergency plan is a necessity. However, in 2003,only half of the properties concerned by potential seismicactivity had elaborated and implemented risk prepared-ness and emergency plans.

Fire is the natural disaster most feared by biosphere reserveand natural park managers. As criminal fires have neverbeen reported in the Asia-Pacific region, most fires seem tobe of natural origin. Attempts have been made to promotefire prevention plans within World Heritage properties inAsia, with some properties already boasting extensive fireprevention facilities, especially in the case of woodenstructures in Japan and South Korea.

A great number of properties lie within tropical climatezones, and are therefore subject to heavy rainfall and mon-soons. Regular floods in World Heritage properties shouldbe taken into consideration when preparing or reviewingemergency and/or management plans. While floods affectmonuments from below, and destabilise structural foun-dations, heavy rainfall affects buildings from above, result-ing in roof leakage, wall seepage, and rising damp. Theseeffects have a long-term impact on the site’s integrity aswell as undesirable visual consequences. They may alsoentail further problems such as the growth of micro-organisms and of rank vegetation.

Natural decay over time is an ineluctable feature of thedaily maintenance of a property. Extreme weather condi-tions particularly affect certain types of constructions suchas wooden structures, earthen architecture and sandstonesculptures. Tropical or oceanic climates, extreme tempera-tures, or even lush vegetation can also cause prematuredeterioration. Progress in conservation technologies andmethodologies has improved conservation against climaticinfluences, but, unfortunately, no miracle solution existsagainst this widespread threat.

Global warming or climatic changes are mentioned ineight World Heritage site-specific reports. The impact ofsuch changes is most noticeable in Pacific natural andmixed properties. Indeed, rising sea levels entail a progres-sive decrease in natural habitats for endemic species;higher temperatures lead to coral bleaching and alter localecosystems.

In the case of natural properties, trans-boundary conser-vation efforts involving two or more States Parties may bean appropriate answer to specific conservation threats fac-ing a given property. This is the case for the Manas WildlifeSanctuary in India, which would significantly benefit from

46


joint conservation efforts with His Majesty’s Governmentof Bhutan. Threats arising from non-endemic invasivespecies may also be dealt with on a site-specific scalethrough clear and well-informed management plans. Twoexamples, both in Australia, include Fraser Island, whereDingo populations are increasingly threatening nativespecies; or in the Willandra Lakes Region, where culls inrabbit populations have been carried out through theintroduction of the Calici virus.

Overcoming Tourism and DevelopmentPressures

Tourism has been one of the greatest motivations in thenational heritage conservation effort. As a provider ofemployment in economies unlikely to take off in the indus-trial or secondary sector, tourism and associated servicesectors have been absorbing an important share of thepeople seeking new opportunities in cities of Asia and thePacific. Given the competition from the so-called Asiandragon states – the industrial powers of the region – manyAsian countries lagging behind in education, skilled labouror industrial resources are increasingly looking towardstourism to meet the needs of the urban population. Onthe other hand, to slow down the rural exodus, employ-ment through tourism is being taken to the hinterlands. Aspositive as this has been in many areas of Asia, turningpoor fishing villages into booming seaside resorts, andsleepy provincial towns with holy temples and princely res-idences into major cultural tourist destinations, the impacthas also been negative.

Manas Wildlife Sanctuary, India

On a gentle slope in the foothills of the Himalayas,where wooded hills give way to alluvial grasslands andtropical forests, the Manas Wildlife Sanctuary is hometo a great variety of wildlife, including many endan-gered species such as the tiger, the pygmy hog, theAsian one-horned rhinoceros and the Indian elephant.The Manas Wildlife Sanctuary, inscribed on the WorldHeritage List in 1985, is contiguous to the Royal ManasNatural Park in Bhutan.

In the late 1980s, Bodo armed rebels increased theirfight towards the establishment of a separate Bodolandin the Indian Province of Assan. Manas WildlifeSanctuary was particularly affected by the subsequentunrest as conservation activities and surveillancedecreased due to security problems. The increase in illegal logging, grazing and poaching of endangeredspecies, especially of one-horned rhinoceroses, elephants and swamp-deer, the restricted site-staffmobility and the intentional destruction of equipmentand infrastructure prompted the World HeritageCommittee to inscribe this property on the List of WorldHeritage in Danger in 1992.

This property faces many of the conservation challengescommon to properties in a conflict situation. Indeed,the lack of security has entailed a significant decrease insurveillance and conservation activities. The presence ofarmed rebels within the wildlife sanctuary, the repeatedattacks against park personnel and the subsequentincrease in poaching have jeopardized effective conser-vation of endangered species, specifically the one-horned rhinoceros whose population has significantlydecreased during this difficult period.

The Government of India and the Bodo people signedan agreement on 6 December 2003. This will, hopefully,be a step in ensuring better conservation and manage-ment of this World Heritage natural property and allowthe authorities to effectively implement new strategies.Amongst these new challenges is the attempt to bridgepolitical boundaries. Indeed, this conflict has proven, yetagain, that species and ecosystem conservation cannotbe effective within protected area boundaries set solelyon the basis of political considerations. Ecosystems needto be taken into account as a whole in order to effec-tively protect them. In this case, international coopera-tion between the Government of India and HerMajesty’s Government of Bhutan seems necessary toensure trans-border conservation.

Another important contributing factor to both conser-vation and peace in the region is sustainable develop-ment. Indeed, by being an employment generator inthis rural and marginal area, this World Heritage prop-erty may offer perspectives to local populations, thusincreasing people’s support for effective conservation asthey gradually become involved in, and dependentupon, the Sanctuary’s ‘well-being’. The World HeritageFund allocated a substantial International Assistance toManas Wildlife Sanctuary in 1997. IUCN recommendedthat the remaining funds be geared towards the estab-lishment of a management plan and towards sustain-able development activities; training and

47


© U

NES

CO

Two endangered species harboured by the Manas Wildlife Sanctuary, India

capacity-building, infrastructure and communicationsdevelopment, conservation education, interpretationand research. This proposal is awaiting approval fromthe Ministry of Environment and Forestry. Many otherfoundations (United Nations Foundation, FordFoundation, American Indian Foundation, Suri SaigalFoundation) are also contributing to this dynamic asthey strive to improve livelihood options for communi-ties in and around the Manas Wildlife Sanctuary, thusstrengthening both stability and conservation in theregion.

World Heritage recognition, especially of a historic centre,but also of some archaeological sites, tends to lead toproperty speculation and gentrification due to demandsfor tourism services. This may be inevitable. But it is ethi-cally unacceptable that poor inhabitants are pushed out oftheir ancestral homes and lands with little or no compen-sation in many States Parties. The issue of public interestthat forms the basis of the World Heritage Convention canonly be addressed with justice. If the State Party requiresthe authority and the right of pre-emption to acquire theWorld Heritage property, or parts of it, to ensure that theyare maintained in good state of conservation, a legalframework stipulating the rights and duties of the localinhabitants must be developed and understood by thepopulation concerned.

Adherence to the World Heritage Convention is no longera matter for the State alone, as properties inscribed shiftfrom government owned historic monuments to urbanhistoric centres, and to vast archaeological areas and cul-tural landscape sites owned and inhabited by the popula-tion at large.

The Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras wereinscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger in 2001for the abandonment of some 35 % of the rice terraces.The Ifugao and other ethnic groups that inhabit the moun-

tains have tended this property, valued for its cultural land-scape of cascading terraced fields, with great care. Butwith the new world order of free trade in rice and otherfood staples, and the industrialization of agriculture andinternational distribution networks extending into the hin-terlands, such arduous back-breaking cultivation along thenarrow strips of land are no longer attracting the youngergeneration to continue the practice, despite its 2,000 yearsof history. Converting the peasants into ‘landscape gar-deners’ who cultivate beauty rather than the food staplehas been discussed, studied and attempted. But successwould depend on the enhancement of local capacities tomanage the site, on human resources, on the marketing ofa special type of tourism, and the tourists themselves. Ifthe benefits go to the low-land groups and the urbandwellers with easy access to the national and internationaltourism operators, the rice terraces will not be maintainedin their current features.

Tourism and development pressures as reported by thePacific States Parties only concern natural and mixed prop-erties, since no cultural properties were inscribed before orin 1994. Despite its greater economic development,Australia highlights similar issues to those mentioned byother Asian or Pacific countries. For example, road con-structions, coastal development related to industrial ortourist activities and poorly planned infrastructure greatlyaffect the ecosystems of maritime and terrestrial protectedareas and thus the integrity of many properties. Such is thecase for Uluru Kata Tjuta, the Wet Tropics of Queensland,and Fraser Island in Australia. Agricultural expansion andland clearance have also been mentioned as major pointsof contention between local stakeholders.

Catering for mass tourism has been a necessity in somecountries, especially in China, where the size of the popu-lation and number of domestic tourists have led to huge,even oversized tourist facilities. But large numbers of visi-tors can be handled by management taking into consider-ation the carrying capacity of each site. This would, ofcourse, entail changes in social practices, hinging on vaca-tion schemes and their organisation. The visitors’ centre atthe Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor, known for itsspectacular terracotta warriors, has more the appearanceof a shopping mall than a tomb site, raising the questionof authenticity. Lumbini, in Nepal, the much revered site ofthe birthplace of Lord Buddha, has also been transformedby oversized buildings for mass pilgrimage. Through bettermanagement of the flow of visitors and more subtle archi-tecture in harmony with the environment and the culturalvalue of the site, visitors’ experience and understanding ofthe site could be better enhanced in these and other sites.

While the impact of tourism and visitor pressure is undeni-able, especially for natural and mixed heritage, it remainsmanageable and relatively predictable, which is not thecase of development pressures. The impacts of visitorbehaviour, the pressures exerted on built heritage or onthe natural environment have mostly been identified andthus need to be appropriately anticipated and monitored.

48


© U

NES

CO

Newly constructed exhibition hall for the Terra Cotta Army inXi’an, China

However, “it remains a disappointment that, despite themany assurances at countless conferences on the theme oftourism and preservation, there is a lack of commitment bythe tourism industry, which by now with its sales is themost important branch of industry world-wide.”4

The Need for Public Awareness andHeritage Consciousness at Local, Nationaland International Levels

The importance of public understanding of the conserva-tion goals of the protected area, and how conservation ofcultural properties can be part of the developmentprocess, is essential. Reviewing the major issues whichhave led to reactive monitoring reports, and those thathave emerged in the process of the Periodic Reportingexercise, clearly shows the absence of a shared vision ofcultural heritage among the different departments of gov-ernment and the sectors of society. Lack of understandingof the aims of conservation is even greater among the general public.

The rich biodiversity of many natural heritage propertiesfaces growing pressure from illegal activities, often result-ing from a lack of awareness within local communities ofthe “outstanding universal value” of a site. A third of the33 natural and mixed properties reporting to the WorldHeritage Committee mention illegal fishing as a majorthreat. The second most prevalent threat is intensive graz-ing and harvesting. Other manifestations of these illegalactivities include gathering of medicinal plants and log-ging. Only two Asia-Pacific properties mention smugglingrare species as a threat: Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (India)and Sunderbans National Park (India). Smuggling seemsfar less common than poaching, an increasing trend inSouth and South-East Asia. These illegal activities are diffi-cult to anticipate and address, and it is recommended thatthe Periodic Reporting exercise should be used as a meansto identify behavioural patterns among local populationsand visitors, while suggesting preventative intelligencegathering methods to prevent vandalism and theft on asub-regional basis.

The case of the Kathmandu Valley World Heritage site,composed of seven monument zones, exemplifies the typeof problems encountered in similar sites around the world.Even when protected areas intentionally include the surroundings of a monument to show the relationshipbetween the monument and its social and spatial context,the civil architecture and traditional fabrics are often notprotected from demolition and total transformation. Thechurches and the convents of Goa, in India, stand todaylike a jewel in a box, in squares of manicured lawn, totallydivorced from their spatial environment. The civil architec-ture of the officials’ residence and the shop-rowhouses

that gave insight to the life of the Citadel in Hué are beingtransformed beyond recognition. In Beijing, the residentialand commercial neighbourhood surrounding theForbidden City, which provided physical testimony of thesocial and political relationship between the imperialpalace and the inhabitants, has been demolished andreplaced by modern shopping complexes. In Lahore, thebeauty of the Shalamar Gardens, apogee of the art ofMughal gardens renowned for its elegant artificial water-falls and ponds, has been seriously undermined. Wideningof the Grand Trunk Road south of the Gardens has led tothe destruction of the ancient water tank that once fed itssophisticated watering system. Renovation of the foot-paths, and new plantation without respect to original formand design have erased the meaning and spirituality of thegardens, while neglect of the built structures framing thebeauty of the landscape have rendered them too danger-ous for visitation today.

The poor, streaming into the city from the countryside,find shelter in shanty houses built against the walls of theShalamar Gardens, as they have along the ramparts of theCitadel of Hue, and at certain segments of the Great Wallof China, to cite but a few examples. Human settlementsin monumental zones have always existed and providemeaning to the grand edifices of religion or politicalauthority, but this is acceptable to a degree. Beyond a cer-tain point these settlements are defined as encroachment,which menaces the cultural value, the significance of themonument and the property in general. But no model reg-ulations can define the rights and the wrongs, as each sit-uation requires its own set of rules and level ofacceptability. The subtlety required in defining these rulesfor each site makes it all the more important to under-stand, analyse and ensure justice in their elaboration andenforcement.

Poverty reduction, improvement of living conditions, andenhancement of development opportunities throughaccess to health services, education, better housing andemployment are goals that the World Heritage Conventionmust also respect. In addressing this challenge, UNESCO,together with the World Heritage Committee, has aimed

49


© U

NES

CO

/ J

. Tan

iguc

hi

Illegal construction in the buffer zone of Meidan Imam Square in Isfahan, Iran

4. ICOMOS, World Report 2001-2002 on Monuments and Sites inDanger. K. G. Saur, 2002, p. 13

to promote the Convention as a tool for sustainable devel-opment, developing synergy and cooperation with themultilateral and bilateral providers of Official DevelopmentAssistance (ODA). While ‘culture’ has yet to be accepted asa sector for ODA benefits, cultural heritage as part of thebuilt environment is becoming increasingly accepted.Again, while the benefits can be great, to meet both theconservation and development objectives of such aid, pastexperience has shown that the best of intentions can leadto major disasters for both conservation and development.

World Heritage properties, now considered to have impor-tant commercial value tied to tourism, have become ben-eficiaries of aid and investment in China, India and muchof South East Asia. Road access to these sites is generallythe first to be improved, facilitating the use of cars, busesand trucks to service visitors. Hotels, guesthouses, restau-rants and gift shops proliferate, increasing the propertyvalue of the area, and as mentioned earlier, leading to cir-cumstances that push out the original inhabitants, or rad-ically transform their lives. Such situations, one may argue,are an inevitable part of growth and social change, but areonly beneficial if the poverty of the inhabitants can bereduced and if growth does not lead to the benefit of thefew and the misery of the majority.

Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore, Pakistan

The Fort and Shalamar Gardens are two masterpiecesfrom the time of the brilliant Mughal civilization, whichreached its height during the reign of the Emperor ShahJahan. The Fort contains marble palaces and mosquesdecorated with mosaics and gilt. The elegance of thesesplendid gardens, built near the city of Lahore on threeterraces with lodges, waterfalls and large ornamentalponds, is unequalled. The Fort and Shalamar Gardens inLahore were inscribed on the World Heritage List in1981.

Water tanks built 375 years ago to supply water to theShalamar Gardens’ fountains were destroyed in June1999 to widen the road which borders the gardens ontheir southern side. The perimeter walls of the Gardensare also deteriorating. Continuous encroachments tothe Fort and Shalamar Gardens constitute a seriousthreat to the property’s integrity. In view of the damageobserved and the threats facing the property, the WorldHeritage Committee, at its 24th session in December2000, decided to inscribe it on the List of WorldHeritage in Danger. This was in response to a requestfrom the Pakistani Government that the internationalcommunity take action to safeguard the property, fac-ing increasing urban development pressures.

In implementing its emergency assistance activity, theWorld Heritage Committee, at its 24th session in 2000,approved an International Assistance request for US$50,000 to elaborate a comprehensive management plan

and undertake consolidation and conservation meas-ures of the hydraulic work approved in 2000, but notyet implemented. On 4 March 2004, the Governmentof Pakistan submitted a revised workplan and budgetbreakdown for the implementation of this project,based on the content of the above request.

A two-year project for the preservation of the LahoreFort, financed by the Government of Norway in cooper-ation with the UNESCO Islamabad Office (US$900,000), was launched in March 2003. This projectfocuses on two different matters. One is a detailedexamination of issues and threats facing the whole ofthe Lahore Fort, and the Shish Mahal in particular. Theother one is the development of a new Master Plan forthe conservation and preservation of the Lahore Fort.

In February 2004, the Prime Minister of Pakistanannounced the transfer of the custody of this propertyto the provincial authorities. The World Heritage Centrereceived confirmation by the Department ofArchaeology and Museums of the Government ofPakistan that, during its visit to the Lahore Fort on 20thFebruary 2004, the Prime Minister of Pakistanannounced that the Lahore Fort and Shalamar Gardenswould be handed over to the Provincial Government ofthe Punjab for their management and administration.As this process is far from being complete, it is difficultto evaluate its consequences on the long-term conser-vation of the property. However, this example illustratesthe complexities of management of a living heritage,especially if it is situated within a rapidly developingurban historic centre.

Beyond the façade of the economic boom, evident inWorld Heritage towns and villages like Lijiang, Hoi An,Luang Prabang, Shirakawa-go and Gokayama, is the real-ity of increased food and property prices, traffic jams,noise and air pollution, and huge volumes of waste. Theoriginal inhabitants have to bear considerable inconven-ience, and in some cases an outright drop in their qualityof life as the price of international fame and recognition.

50


© U

NES

CO

375 years old hydraulic works (on the right), demolisheddue to urban pressure, Lahore Fort, Pakistan

Improvement of sanitation through public works onsewage systems and other urban infrastructure is oftencited as the catalytic effect on local development, urbanconservation and renewal of inner city decay. But in manycases, while the aims are noble, the modalities in the execution of the public works have led to undesirable consequences.

In Luang Prabang, for example, an international engineer-ing office responded to the international bidding proce-dures of a regional development bank, and designedurban road upgrading and riverbank consolidation with-out understanding the local climatic and geological fac-tors, and without concern for the local social practices orthe heritage value of the property. Massive concretegabion-consolidations of the riverbank were made to sup-port widened roads along the river. Oversized drains haveled to drying up the protected urban wetlands that formpart of the world heritage value of the property. Straight,flat urban roads of even elevation that ignore the naturaltopography of the terrain now leave many traditionalhouses below street level, and in pools of still water duringthe monsoon rains. Ill-adapted design in this case wascompounded by the use of an exogenous public workscompany that hardly contributed to the local economy andemployment for the local inhabitants. This case is all themore unfortunate as examples of excellent, heritage-con-scious, well-adapted roads and sewage already existed inthe same town, less than one kilometre away, designedand executed by another aid agency working in collabora-tion with UNESCO.

Millions of dollars are being spent today by aid agencies,national tourism authorities, local governments and pri-vate investors to build better facilities for visitors. Theexperience of concentrating souvenir vendors and refresh-ment stands in one area and grouping them together withparking lots for tourist buses and other services has beensuccessful in sites like the Ajanta Caves in India, but thesame type of facilities in Hampi could undermine the localeconomy and destroy the magical beauty of the area’slandscape. Again, a good practice for one site would be abad practice in another.

If sharing the value of local culture as a World Heritage sitewith visitors, and if infrastructure upgrading and economicgrowth associated with tourism development do not ben-efit the local population, how can they be expected to par-ticipate in the conservation of the site? If large sums ofmoney for public works are borrowed in the form of loansto be reimbursed by future generations, would it not benormal that the local population be given priority inaccessing the employment such works generate? Just as‘pro-poor’ strategies and actions are increasingly adoptedas the only way to achieve the poverty reduction objectivesof international cooperation, World Heritage protection,conservation and enhancement also need specificallydesigned safeguarding measures to ensure the respect ofhuman rights, and priority access to social and economicdevelopment opportunities for the local population. Pilot

projects on ‘pro-local’ strategy in the conservation anddevelopment of World Heritage sites in Asia should bedesigned and experimented as part of the next phase ofthe Periodic Reporting exercise by the Asia-Pacific StatesParties.

Preventing and Mitigating Threats andRisks

Every property inscribed on the World Heritage List facesspecific threats and risks which have previously been iden-tified and detailed. Indeed, “cultural [and natural] heritage[are] always at risk. [They are] at risk from the depredationsof war. [They are] at risk in the face of nature’s occasionaleruptions and irruptions. [They are] at risk from politicaland economic pressures. [They are] at risk from the dailyforces of slow decay, attrition and neglect. [They are] evenat risk from the hand of over-zealous conservators!”5

Throughout the Periodic Reporting exercise, national andsite authorities have outlined a number of threats andhave, in some cases, provided ongoing and potential solu-tions. Some of these solutions have been mentionedabove, but have always been presented as ad hoc prac-tices. The most effective and holistic approach to threatand risk mitigation is the institutionalisation of risk mitiga-tion efforts in a risk-preparedness plan for a given WorldHeritage property. Indeed, this solution integrates most ofthe above-mentioned suggestions in a single, comprehen-sive structure. It emphasises the need to prevent threatsand risks, rather than merely reacting to them, and enablessite managers to be prepared in the event of a disaster,undertaking swift and appropriate foreseen actions, andtaking more general factors into account, such as overallurban development and population-related issues.

51


© U

NES

CO

/ J

-F. M

ilou

Large vehicular bridge in construction over Anegondi River,Hampi, India

5. Stovel, H. Risk preparedness: a management manual for world cultural heritage. ICCROM, Rome, 1998.

Tubbataha Reef Marine Park, Philippines

The Tubbataha Reef Marine Park (TRMP), inscribed onthe World Heritage List in 1993, covers 33,200 ha andis a unique example of pristine coral reef. It is consid-ered the largest reef atoll in the Philippines, harbouringa diversity of marine life equal to or greater than anysuch area in the world. Approximately 46 coral generaand more than 300 coral species have been recorded,as well as at least 40 families and 379 species of fish.Marine turtles nest on beaches of the south and northreef. Both reefs are also rookeries for a variety of birds.

This property is state-owned and uninhabited duringmost of the year. Inhabitants of neighbouring islands dohowever establish temporary camp in the area duringthe fishing season. Tubbataha Reef is also an increas-ingly popular tourist destination for snorkelling, divingand sport-fishing activities.

This property faces many potential or actual threats.Indeed, the remote setting of this Marine Park posesmany logistical problems, which increases managementcosts significantly. The use of dynamite and cyanide forfishing until the mid 1990s has led to significant bio-physical degradation, further increased by the dumpingof garbage and waste water by dive boats and fisher-men. Global warming is also a matter of serious concern for this sensitive coral reef. Coral reefs are welladapted to their environment and many species currently live at or close to their temperature thresholds.Increases in sea-surface temperature of only 0.5 degreesabove the normal summer maximum have initiatedcoral bleaching in some areas.

Furthermore, “the reef acts as a natural self-repairingbreakwater for the coast. Any increase in intensity ofthe monsoons and/or typhoons, together with addedstress already being exerted on this ecosystem throughcoral bleaching could be devastating for the reef andthe species it supports.” (Hulme, M. and Sheard, N. (1999), “Climate Change Scenarios for thePhilippines”, Climatic Research Unit, Norwich, UK) Coralreefs worldwide are also threatened by increasing levelsof atmospheric carbon dioxide, which reduce theamount of dissolved calcium carbonate in ocean water,an essential chemical for reef-building corals.

The Government of the Philippines has undertaken anumber of conservation measures which effectivelytackle most of the human-induced threats and risks.The current management of the Park presents an effec-tive conservation strategy. The Tubbataha ProtectedArea Management Board (TPAMB), set up in 1998, is apolicy-making body which promulgates rules and regu-lations as well as administers the Tubbataha Trust Fund.Since June 2001 it shares responsibility for the park’sdaily maintenance with the Tubbataha ManagementOffice (TMO). Although the main stakeholders and

institutional partners are involved in the TPAMB deci-sion-making process, the Periodic Report underlines theneed to increase collaboration with national govern-ment agencies. Tourism operators and local, as well asinternational, NGOs are also affiliated to the TPAMB.

The revised five-year management plan, which has beenoperational from the beginning of 2004, strives toestablish “a model World Heritage property with awealth of biological diversity that is effectively con-served to maintain ecological integrity contributing tothe equitable distribution of benefits and sustainedsocio-economic development of present and futuregenerations.” (Tubbataha Management Office, State ofConservation Report on the Tubbataha Reef MarinePark, June 2004, p. 15)

It underlines five key areas to attain these goals: • To enhance long-term protection of resources through

ecosystem management in collaboration with variouspartners;

• To promote public understanding of the benefits ofconserving Tubbataha through education and aware-ness raising campaigns;

• To assist in the promotion of an environmental policyfavourable to the long-term conservation of the TRMP;

• To support and promote research activities as well asheighten understanding of the ecosystem processes ofTubbataha and improve management decision making;

• To assist the local authorities in the sustainable man-agement of local resources in order to implement asuitable, community-based sustainable resource man-agement and effective livelihood strategies.

Due to the recent application of these measures, resultsare not yet apparent. Furthermore, these measures onlypartially remedy the threats faced by the TubbatahaReef. Indeed, although a partnership agreement for theprotection of the Sulu Sulawesi eco-region, to whichthe TRMP belongs, was recently signed with Malaysiaand Indonesia, the threats and risks facing theTubbataha Reef Marine Park, similar to those facing the

majority of coralreefs worldwideand especially in thePacific region, needto be apprehendedon an internationalscale.

52


© U

NES

CO

Illegal fishingthreatens the biodiversity ofTubbataha’s protected fauna,Philippines

This approach refocuses attention from a curative to a preventative approach and from a short-term to a long-term perspective. In the long run, it is an economicallyviable strategy as maintenance is cheaper than reconstruc-tion: “Built-heritage conservation principles have beendeveloped primarily to guide thinking about intervention,i.e., about curative approaches to heritage. Principles rele-vant to improving risk preparedness for built cultural heritage need to be devised for preventative approaches,concerned with improving the general condition for the long-term survival of cultural heritage and its significantmessages.”6

Herb Stovel, Director of the Heritage Settlements Unit atthe International Centre for the Conservation andRestoration of Monuments (ICCROM), details the princi-ples for effective risk-preparedness in Risk Preparedness: aManagement Manual for World Cultural Heritage. Theseprinciples are also mostly valid for natural World Heritageproperties. He advocates:• Advance planning and preparation;• A holistic approach which takes all aspects of a given

property into account;• The need for a risk-preparedness plan to have the least

impact on heritage values;• Appropriate documentation;• Involvement of local populations in development of

emergency-response plans;• Establishment of a single authority.

The implementation of such a risk-preparedness plan is tofollow a three-phase process. First, a preparedness phasewhich foresees reducing risks at source, reinforcing theability of a property to resist or contain the consequencesof a disaster using specific technologies, such as sprinklersystems for fire prevention and/or structural reinforcementto counter earthquakes, providing adequate warning ofimpending disaster through the use of sensors or smokedetectors, for example, and developing emergencyresponse plans. This phase should be based on a sharedunderstanding of a property, its qualities, its condition andits needs when facing a disaster, as well as preparing on-site individuals for assuming appropriate responsibilitybefore, during and after a given disaster.

The second phase, namely the response phase, startsimmediately after a given disaster has occurred. Duringthis phase the relevant authorities should mobilise the con-servation team to ensure the availability of the responseplan to all relevant actors involved who should, by then, befamiliar with the actions to be undertaken as they will havepreviously studied the plan.

Finally, the recovery phase aims to mitigate the negativeconsequences of the disaster as well as to rebuild the phys-ical components of the property, the infrastructure and thesocial structure of those using the property and that of the

surrounding communities. Site authorities should, oncethe situation is stabilised, reflect upon the above processand assess the adequacy of the preparedness measures inplace before the disaster as well as draw lessons to inte-grate in the reinstated and revised risk-preparedness plan.

These dynamics and the subsequent planning they involveneed to be carried out at a site-specific level. In order to bemore effective, however, they need to be integrated withina Master Plan, which takes wider factors into account andhelps to liaise the different levels of authority involved,ranging from local to national and possibly internationalstakeholders.

By way of conclusion, it can be said that justice must bethe starting point, whether it be to avoid armed conflictsand deflate potential ethnic or religious tensions, to designand plan for development that will benefit the majority, orto promote inclusive policies and programmes to bring inthe poor and local population. Laws and regulations mustbe accompanied by knowledge and skills transfer, and bypublic awareness. Increased international efforts areneeded to combat threats which cannot be tackled byStates Parties alone, and which are bound to increase asdevelopment continues, such as global warming, pollu-tion, or looting of cultural artefacts.

While the first cycle of the Periodic Reporting exercise forthe Asia-Pacific region sought to concentrate on the iden-tification of threats and risks, the next round of PeriodicReporting will need to address management and monitor-ing challenges related to the mitigation of the threats iden-tified during the first round. Thus, UNESCO, in promotingthe World Heritage Convention and the OperationalGuidelines for the identification, protection, conservationand enhancement of cultural and natural heritage of out-standing universal value, must work with the States Partiesthrough education, science and communication for all, inpromoting more sustainable forms of development whichwill ultimately benefit the World Heritage properties themselves.

53


6. ibid

Management and MonitoringChallenges

55

My Son, Vietnam

© UNESCO / A.Valtat

5

Management and monitoring of World Heritageproperties encompass many issues, all of which mustbe comprehensively addressed to achieve effectiveand sustainable conservation of heritage values.Recognised issues in identifying proper manage-ment and monitoring mechanisms include the identi-fication of the heritage values of the property; itsconservation needs; ways and means to enhance siteinterpretation and presentation; tourism manage-ment and development; and recognition and respectof the relationship between the property and localcommunities.

After more than 30 years experience of the imple-mentation of the World Heritage Convention,UNESCO, the World Heritage Committee, WorldHeritage site management authorities, non-govern-mental organisations and local stakeholders haverecognised increasingly that effective conservation,management and sustainable development of WorldHeritage derives first and foremost from identifica-tion of the tangible and intangible heritage values ofthe properties, and thereafter from developing andimplementing appropriate management plans. It hasincreasingly been recognised that there are variousapproaches to site management appropriate to particular heritage conservation requirements, legal systems and community development needs. As the results of the national Periodic Reports for the Asia-Pacific region clearly demonstrate, a regionalapproach to management planning needs to be elab-orated through enhanced regional cooperation andexchange of international and regional expertise,taking into account the specific management needsand methods of Asia-Pacific national authorities andsite managers.

The present chapter looks into definitions of man-agement and monitoring with reference to theWorld Heritage Convention and its implementationat the State Party level. Particular attention will befocused on the needs and expectations of nationalauthorities and site managers of the Asia-Pacificregion, as illustrated in the national and site-specificPeriodic Reports submitted to the World HeritageCommittee in June-July 2003. A presentation of newchallenges in specific types of heritage or issues –tourism management, cultural landscapes, archaeo-logical sites, urban areas, values-based management– will attempt to link present and future concerns formanagement and monitoring of inscribed andpotential World Heritage properties.

Defining Management and Monitoring ofWorld Heritage

The concept of site management and management plan-ning is actually one that is relatively recent. Prior to aboutthe 1980s, we spent much more time focusing on the

‘scientific principles’ of conservation and restoration, witha focus on the material aspects of the heritage and the useof new technologies to aid in the cause of conservation.The Venice Charter of 1964, in fact, does not even men-tion the word ‘management’, and ‘plan’ is only used inanother sense. The first attempt to comprehensively puttogether guidelines for management of World Heritageproperties was in 1983. At the request of the Division forCultural Heritage, which was working directly on WorldHeritage in the time before the World Heritage Centre, anexpert group was put together to begin development ofmanagement guidelines for World Heritage properties.Finally, after almost 10 years of discussion, the first man-agement guidelines were published by ICCROM, ICOMOS,and UNESCO in 1993.

Management Systems and Plans in the Revised Operational Guidelines(Abstracts)

56

Management and Monitoring Challenges5

108. Each nominated property should have an appropriate management plan or other documented management system which should specify how the outstanding universal value of a property should be preserved, preferably through participatory means.

110. An effective management system depends on the type, characteristics and needs of the nominated property and its cultural and natural context. Manage-ment systems may vary according to different cultural perspectives, the resources available and other factors. They may incorporate traditional practices, existing urban or regional planning instruments, and other planning control mechanisms, both formal and informal.

111. In recognizing the diversity mentioned above, common elements of an effective management system could include:

(i) a thorough shared understanding of the property by all stakeholders;(ii) a cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback;(iii) the involvement of partners and stakeholders;(iv) the allocation of necessary resources;(v) capacity-building; and(vi) an accountable, transparent description of how the management system functions.

114. In the case of serial properties, a management system or mechanisms for ensuring the co-ordinated management of the separate components are essential and should be documented in the nomination (see paragraphs 137-139).

117. States Parties are responsible for implementing effective management activities for a World Heritage property. States Parties should do so in close collabora-tion with property managers, the agency with manage-ment authority and other partners, and stakeholders in property management.

The Recognised Need for Management andMonitoring

The newly revised Operational Guidelines for theImplementation of the World Heritage Convention insiston the existence of a site management plan as an essen-tial prerequisite for the inscription of a site on the WorldHeritage List. The text of the Operational Guidelines alsoencourages States Parties to set up management systemsintended to ensure the effective protection of a property,while adopting a participatory approach in its elaborationand implementation. It recalls that “States Parties areresponsible for ensuring effective management of theirWorld Heritage properties” (Paragraph 92 of theOperational Guidelines).

The Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee(ICOMOS, IUCN and ICCROM) send experts on site mis-sions to evaluate new nominations or the state of conser-vation of inscribed World Heritage properties. Part of thisevaluation work consists in analyzing the level and effec-tiveness of site management and whether a site manage-ment plan is being effectively implemented. In recentyears, one of the main reasons for deferring WorldHeritage nominations back to a State Party has been thelack of a management plan or an inadequate manage-ment system.

World Heritage monitoring, whether periodic or reactive,quite often shows that many of the problems on sites arethe result of the absence of a management plan, failure toimplement an existing plan, missing elements or no man-agement system at all. Those involved in World Heritageissues will not be surprised to see more and more sitesplaced on the World Heritage List in Danger for the samereason – poor management, or cultural (or natural) valuesat risk as a result of such management. If this is the situa-tion with inscribed World Heritage properties, it is to beexpected that the situation at other sites will be no betteror even worse.

Although management was always a requirement forWorld Heritage nominations, the problem has onlyrecently become obvious enough to receive special atten-tion. For years the dominant issue seemed to be ‘conser-vation’, more technical in character and leading to specificinterventions. The problems receiving most attention werethose of material deterioration, poor conservation (ornone at all), destruction, lack of skills, lack of financial andtechnical resources, and so forth.

Defining a Management System

Does the fact that we are suddenly discussing manage-ment plans mean that management has become moreimportant than conservation? What do we mean by ‘man-agement’ of cultural or natural heritage, and what do‘management plan’ and ‘management system’ exactlyrefer to? These are just a few frequently asked questions,and outsiders are not the only ones to ask them.

Management and Monitoring Issues at the‘World Heritage International Congress’ (Italy, 2002)

Two international workshops, one on World Heritagesite management, one on monitoring of WorldHeritage, were organized within the framework of the‘World Heritage International Congress’ held in theVenice Province, Italy, in November 2002.

The Padua workshop concerning World Heritage sitemanagement was co-organized by English Heritage, theGetty Conservation Institute, and UNESCO's WorldHeritage Centre, and generously hosted by the City ofPadua with the support of the CARIPARO Foundationand the Government of Italy. This Workshop, from 11-12 November 2002, gathered experts and represen-tatives from Australia, Benin, Cambodia, Canada,Germany, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan,Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey, the UnitedKingdom, the United States of America, the GettyConservation Institute, ICCROM, ICOMOS, andUNESCO. Taking stock of 30 years of experience in theimplementation of the World Heritage Convention, theworkshop participants re-examined World Heritage sitemanagement needs, reviewed existing site managementguidance, and identified the major gaps in site manage-ment tools and guidelines.

The Vicenza workshop, from 11-12 November 2002,was organized by ICCROM and UNESCO’s WorldHeritage Centre, and generously supported by theBanca Intesa BCI, and the City of Vicenza. Organisationof the workshop was also supported by ICOMOS andIUCN who both nominated key experts and providedfinancial support for participation. 23 experts from 16 countries attended the Monitoring workshop. Theprincipal purpose of the workshop was to strengthenappreciation and appropriate use of monitoring in theeffective management of heritage properties of culturaland natural value, particularly in the context of sitesinscribed on the World Heritage List. In this context, theWorld Heritage system should be understood as

offering a vehicle to promote best practices in monitor-ing for all heritage sites. The objectives of the workshopwere: (i) to place discussion in the context of the largestream of related global meetings and initiatives con-cerned with monitoring issues for cultural and naturalheritage; (ii) to strengthen co-operation in tangible waysamong those responsible for monitoring cultural andnatural heritage; and (iii) to explore the effective inte-gration of the new monitoring technologies within sitemanagement systems and programmes.

The conclusions and recommendations of the Paduaand Vicenza workshops can be downloaded athttp://whc.unesco.org/venice2002/workshops

57

Management and Monitoring Challenges 5

Protection of values and conservation of World Heritagerequire human involvement. Without such involvement,the tangible remains of past human activities will sooner orlater be back at their starting point – reduced to raw mate-rials. Whether as a result of action or inaction, or the effectof environmental elements, these remains can lose the veryvalues for which society decided to protect them and ofteneven nominate them as World Heritage properties.Without presuming to venture into deep philosophical orsociological questions concerning the way societies func-tion, it probably holds true that most societies are endowedwith hierarchic structures, decision-making processes andrules. The encounter of all these with the need to act forthe protection of heritage values may be considered thebeginning of ‘cultural heritage management’.

The easiest way to describe a management system is prob-ably to go through its components and activities; this rathersimplistic way of describing a complex issue should wellillustrate the situation. The starting point is an awareness ofthe existence of cultural and natural heritage with inherentvalues worth preserving. A first conscious step in this direc-tion, following definitions, surveys, grading, and so forth –that is, collection and analysis of information – would bethe site’s legal protection. Depending on the kind of societyand heritage, these can be formal laws or traditional pro-tection measures, such as tabu. But if rules are to be imple-mented and enforced, certain tools must exist:

• An administrative tool, to maintain, manage, formulateand implement plans and take charge of day-to-dayactivities;

• A financial tool, for which no explanation is needed;• A conservation tool, which will include professional staff

from all relevant fields as well as training opportunities;• Social and outreach tools, which will involve ways and

explicit plans to involve society in decisions and mobilisethe media.

All these different ‘tools’ have to work together towardsan effective, sustainable management of the tangible heritage. Taken together, they may be viewed as a management system.

Principles and Plans to Manage World HeritageProperties

What then is a ‘management plan’? There is no singleaccepted definition of what a management plan is or whatshould be included, although it might tentatively bedefined as:

A plan which, following upon the definition ofcultural and/or natural values, protects them byapplying legal, administrative, financial and pro-fessional conservation methods and tools, and byprescribing certain strategies and specific actions.

Monitoring Requirementsin the Revised Operational Guidelines

Each step in the creation of such a plan is in itself a process,starting with the definition of cultural and/or natural val-ues, as well as considering other values (economic, forexample) inherent to the site. ‘Whose values?’ is anotherissue requiring the identification of different stakeholders– from scientists to owners, developers, politicians, visitors,tourist guides, merchants, inhabitants and other users.Meeting the stakeholders and understanding how theyperceive the values, and how conflicting values and inter-ests may be accommodated without compromising thecultural ones, is one of the biggest challenges to be met.

Setting short- and long-term strategies for the protectionand enhancement of the defined heritage then leads tospecific plans, among which should be conservation, pres-entation and maintenance plans. Conservation plans inparticular are part of the management plan. The sameapplies to the monitoring plan or programme, with provi-sions for evaluation and revision mechanisms. All thesespecific plans, combined with the existence of a manage-ment system, may be considered as a ‘management plan’.A good management plan is usually one that adopts amulti-disciplinary and multi-sectorial approach.

Monitoring as an Essential Component of SiteManagement

Just as sound management of a site is a precondition of itslong-term conservation, monitoring appears to be themost adequate tool in assessing the results of the objec-tives set in the management plan. Monitoring, whichderives from the Latin verb moneo (to remind, admonish,warn) has the same etymologic origin as the word ‘monu-ment’, and is thus intrinsically linked to it.

The purpose of monitoring, whether it is for natural or cul-tural heritage, is two-fold: it measures to what extent thesite management is successful in accomplishing its goals;and it identifies the physical condition of a site. This assess-ment can be undertaken in an intermittent way, either

58


113. Moreover, in the context of the implementation of the Convention, the World Heritage Committee has established a process of Reactive Monitoring (see Chapter IV) and a process of Periodic Reporting (see Chapter V).

regularly through systematic monitoring, or irregularlythrough reactive monitoring. Thus, repeated assessmentof the values and the authenticity/integrity over a certaintime span are an essential component of the managementprocess of a site. As Jukka Jokilehto mentions in her articleMonitoring Cultural Heritage Sites, “in order to be able todo this, the site needs to have been properly researchedand documented at the time of listing in order to have firmbaseline data against which the values and authenticitycan be ‘measured’.”7

The first step in the setting up of a monitoring system isthe definition of monitoring indicators. These indicatorsusually derive from the objectives set out in the manage-ment plan, when such a plan exists, and are progressivelyfine-tuned through a series of observations. Fieldwork stillremains the prominent monitoring method, although insome cases, indirect data collection and analysis oftencomplement the results of fieldwork.

Once monitoring has been completed and an assessmentmade of the condition of the site’s features, there shouldalways be feedback to site management, ensuring propermitigation of threats and risks, as well as improvement ofmanagement measures. The frequency of monitoring willoften depend more on the availability of human and finan-cial resources than on the results of the previous monitor-ing exercises.

The World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) inCambridge has pioneered various ways of collecting datato ensure the most appropriate management of naturalheritage sites. Applied to the natural heritage properties ofthe Asia-Pacific region, some of these methods could yieldastounding results, providing not only an assessment ofthe site itself, but also a more general picture of its situa-tion in a sub-regional or regional context. As for culturalheritage properties, their particular focus on heritage val-ues rather than scientific data as monitoring indicatorsmake the identification of monitoring models a challeng-ing task.

Management and Monitoring Issues in theAsia-Pacific Region

Administrative Arrangements for Enhanced SiteManagement

Before going further into the issues of the existence andcontent of the various management plans mentioned bythe Asia-Pacific States Parties in their Periodic Reports, it isimportant to draw a regional picture of existing nationaladministrative arrangements set up to manage and protect World Heritage.

Administrative arrangements are mainly described in theSection I Periodic Reports, although Section II PeriodicReports also mention administrative arrangements at sitelevel. The data collected on these arrangements clearly indi-cate the coexistence of Government agencies responsiblefor the protection and overall management of heritageproperties, and local or even site authorities responsible for day-to-day management of these properties. TheArchaeological Survey of India (ASI), the APSARA Authorityin Cambodia or the National Council for Culture and theArts (NCCA) in the Philippines, for example, are nationalagencies for culture in charge of supervising the protectionof World Heritage cultural properties among many otherheritage sites. It is important to note that in the Asia-Pacificregion management arrangements can be legal, contrac-tual, traditional or collaborative, with a statutory mecha-nism usually excluding a more informal mechanism.

Where local, provincial and national authorities jointlyensure the management of a property, such as in Vietnam,Laos or Uzbekistan, overlapping of responsibilities mayoccur. This often results in delays in the realisation ofrestoration works or in the distribution of funds. However,where local stakeholders are invited to participate in thedevelopment of management guidelines for a property, oreven in the daily management of a property, positive out-comes can be expected. This is the case in the Philippines,where the Catholic Church works together with the NCCAin order to ensure proper management of the BaroqueChurches of the Philippines, inscribed on the WorldHeritage List in 1993. In the Pacific, local World HeritageCommittees are gradually being set up in order tostrengthen the involvement of local stakeholders andAboriginals in the management of sacred or natural WorldHeritage properties.

59


Graph 1: States Parties responses on management issues fornatural and mixed World Heritage properties

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

76%

0%

South Asia

Site management plan

South East Asia North East Asia Pacific

13%20% 20%

80%71,4%

42,9%

28,6%

84,6%

30,8%

7,7%

Master plan Emergency or risk preparedness plan

Graph 2: States Parties responses on management issues forcultural World Heritage properties

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

40%

20% 20%

West Central Asia

Site management plan

South Asia South East Asia North East Asia

33%

16,7%

53%50%50%

75%75%66,7%

25%

Master plan Emergency or risk preparedness plan

7. Jukka JOKILEHTO, “Monitoring Cultural Heritage Sites”, ICCROMNewsletter no.21, 1997.

Whether the administrative arrangements are consideredadequate or not by the States Parties, a majority of themstill recognise that human and technical resources areinsufficient, and that training is needed in terms of man-agement skills and practices. To be properly addressed,training needs should be considered in an integrated way,together with development and revision of managementmechanisms for the concerned properties.

Establishing Tools for Management

In terms of general site management planning, a strongdiscrepancy exists between natural and cultural WorldHeritage properties in the region. While only 1 out of 2 cul-tural sites has a management plan, the figures rise to 4 outof 5 for natural sites (see graphs 1 and 2 above). Withregard to these results, States Parties in the region haveexpressed their desire for enhanced sharing of expertiseand information on management of World Heritage prop-erties through dissemination of relevant managementplans and strategies. The management plans of LuangPrabang and Vat Phou in Laos are models of their kind andhave been elaborated in strong consultation with local

populations and experts from other World Heritage prop-erties. These management plans have been drafted withthe financial support of International assistance from theWorld Heritage Fund, and extrabudgetary funding for thepreparation or revision of management plans have beengranted to several Asian States Parties.

Before considering collaborative partnerships betweensimilar properties and their management authorities, theabsence of a management plan must be addressed in pri-ority. South Asian properties, a large number of whichwere inscribed in the early 80s, often lack basic manage-ment mechanisms, while personnel is not trained to prop-erly implement the management plan where one has beendrawn up. Emergency or risk preparedness plans need tobe integrated into the global management strategy for aproperty, especially where natural disasters or other pre-dictable phenomena are a pertaining threat to the prop-erty. A third step could be the use of ad hoc environmentalor cultural impact assessments to manage the develop-ment of properties situated within or near urban centres ortourist areas, in order to avoid irremediable loss of authen-ticity and/or integrity of the property.

60


The APSARA Management Model (Cambodia)

Facts and Figures

The APSARA Authority (Autorité pour la protection du site et l’aménagement de la région d’Angkor) was created in February1995, following the recommendations of the World Heritage Committee at its 17th session in 1993. APSARA’s missions are to : • Ensure the protection, conservation and promotion of the national cultural heritage in the Angkor region;• Plan and conduct the development of the Siem Reap touristic zone;• Ensure the co-ordination of the restoration works undertaken within Angkor and Siem Reap by national and international

teams.

Between 1995 and 1999, the lack of technical and financial support from local and national authorities to the APSARAAuthority did not facilitate its missions. In 1999, a Royal Decree gave APSARA more administrative and financial autonomy.Since then, the entrance fees perceived at Angkor feed the APSARA budget, which amounted to US$ 3,9 million in 2002. In2003, a second Royal Decree revised the organisational structure of APSARA (see chart below), with the aim to strenghteninterdepartmental co-odination and increase national and international visibility. APSARA currently employs approximately1,140 staff, of which more than 1,000 are guards and workers, and works every year on more than 50 restoration anddevelopment projects.

Organisational Chart of the APSARA Authority since 2001

Although visitor management is a particular aspect of themanagement of a property, it is recommended that thetwo be closely linked. The national Periodic Reportsrevealed that South Asian and South-East Asian propertieshave poor visitor management mechanisms, and that visi-tor facilities often need drastic improvements. In proper-ties like Borobudur in Indonesia, Hampi or Fatehpur Sikri inIndia, the location of the visitor interpretation centre is a

major issue, as it opposes the tourism development strat-egy of the province or region and the long-term conserva-tion strategy of the property.

New initiatives in addressing both the challenges of con-servation and development through tourism, such as eco-tourism, should be explored by the States Parties. WorldHeritage circuits involving systematic use of the financial

61


Management and Monitoring Mechanisms

The APSARA Authority is in charge of developing both the theoretical and operational aspects of heritage conservation, andthe sustainable economic and social development of the Angkor region. Two departments have a more conceptual andstrategic orientation: the Department of Culture and Research, and the Socio-Economic Development Department. Thethree other Departments focus mainly on restoration, rehabilitation and urbanization works.

A site development plan exists for the property, consisting of three major lines of action: • A master plan for conservation and risk preparedness; • A master plan for monument and site management; • A master plan for tourism development.

However, effective implementation of the site development plan will depend upon further elaboration of work plans, as wellas an elaboration of implementation procedures and mechanisms.

In the case of the Khmer temples and their surroundings, the following priorities in management and monitoring have beenidentified: cultural and natural landscapes; authenticity and quality of intake in the Angkor park; evaluation of the pedes-trian and vehicular traffic; integrated site planning; development of the monument signage and showcasing; and urgentregulation of the tourist influx. All departments work together for the successful completion of these priority targets.

A very detailed book of specifications is elaborated for each temple or historicmonument, together with a technical data sheet, fed by the results of regularmaintenance, visual surveys and other monitoring activities undertaken on-site. A GIS Unit, created in 1999 with the help of JICA, provides APSARA with detailedtopographic, archaeological and environmental information on the site monu-ments and surroundings.

Personnel training is considered a high priority by APSARA. Since 2002, the FrenchGovernment provides institutional support to the APSARA Authority through theFSP Programme, a bilateral programme aimed at enhancing institutional capacity-building in conservation of the historical monuments andtouristic site planning. A training course called “Tanei” has been set up to trainfuture employees.

Future Challenges

The Department of Monuments and Archaeology has identified the followingneeds, which will affect the quality of the management and monitoring of the sitein the near future: • Creation of units in the following domains: landscaping, engineering, to

pography, photogrammetry and photography; • Creation of laboratories for the study of ceramics and stone;• Training in CAD (computer aided drawing) and topographic tools.

Two other challenges await APSARA in the next two to three years: the increasing importance of water management in relation to heritage conservation, as well as the issue of landscapes and their integration into traditional conservation policies. Taking up these challenges will necessitate strong involvement from the international community together withaccrued training of APSARA experts.

© A

PSA

RA

Example of fact sheet elaborated byAPSARA prior to restoration work

benefits for conservation are being currently explored inVietnam. Eco-taxes can serve a similar purpose, and arebeing implemented by the relevant national authorities incountries like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. At those proper-ties for which management plans and systems exist andhave proven efficient, these initiatives could yield positiveresults if properly integrated into a larger master plan.

Estimation of Risks and Threats

At the international level, there have been increasingrequests from the World Heritage Committee for a moresystematic assessment of World Heritage properties, par-ticularly to determine whether the outstanding universalvalue (OUV) for which a monument or landscape wasinscribed on the World Heritage List has been maintainedor degraded. As outlined by a number of national PeriodicReports, effective management of World Heritage proper-ties may not be able to occur without monitoring, evalua-tion and adaptive management of the site attributes whichare explicitly related to their World Heritage status. In thissense, World Heritage designation should bring with it thehighest level of quality assurance in monitoring available atthe national and regional level.

This section discusses a number of specific questions raisedby national Periodic Reports concerning the frequency andthoroughness of monitoring. In particular, does an up-to-date management plan exist with defined indicators bywhich to gauge the effectiveness of site management? Inthose cases where a management plan has been drawnup, to what extent are annual benchmarks established tointegrate the sometimes ambitious goals of the plan withmonthly/yearly tasks to be carried out by designated pro-tected area staff? How important should it be to have anemergency plan for extreme events which might suddenlystrike a World Heritage property? Further, what proce-dures are currently available to World Heritage site man-agers and policy makers to decide when the state ofconservation of a World Heritage site goes beyond a ‘normal level’ of recurrent risks?

No World Heritage property, whether in the Asia-Pacificregion or anywhere else in the world, will ever be entirelyfree from risk. Even well-maintained properties, like the

Historic Centre of Florence, have suffered from unex-pected flash floods which destroyed priceless culturaltreasures. As repeatedly emphasised by Section II PeriodicReports from Australia, the first step for any site managermust be to identify and isolate what all the possible risksto a World Heritage site may be, followed by an attemptto rank those risks in order of importance, culminating inan itemised work plan ranking priority actions in time andspace.

An ongoing ‘risk’ for a World Heritage site may be con-nected to natural cycles in climate involving yearly fluctua-tions in rainfall, sunlight or wind erosion. In many cases,the simple passage of time constitutes an inevitable age-ing process whereby the stone, wood and earth – whichcompose many of the traditional building materials for theregion – begin to decompose. Regular monitoring allowssite authorities to estimate this rate of decomposition andgauge management interventions. In other cases, some ofthese predictable patterns, such as tidal variations andrainfall in the Pacific, may become increasingly unpre-dictable owing to global climatic changes leading to a risein sea-level, extreme weather patterns and violent storms.The same vagaries in the weather in one part of the regionmay also be leading to droughts and forest fires elsewhere.

The ability to estimate the seriousness and urgency of suchrisks is at the heart of preventive monitoring. In order tocomplement the reactive monitoring missions, whichassess the state of conservation for selected WorldHeritage properties, the Periodic Reporting exercise hasbeen designed to generate greater national capacity andregularity in collecting information on ongoing and recur-rent risks to World Heritage properties. As originally envis-aged by the World Heritage Committee, the informationcontained in the National Periodic Reports should providethe ‘building blocks’ for the Committee to accurately inter-pret change at the site level. Through the submission ofregular periodic reports every six years, the World HeritageCommittee will thus be able to assess when changes gofrom a normal ‘green light’ status of recurrent manage-ment challenges, to a warning ‘yellow light’ owing to theincreasing number and seriousness of threats. When thegravity of threats is further increased, it is hoped that theWorld Heritage Committee will be able to react quickly tothe ‘red light’ signal by placing properties on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger.

Time-Scale for Monitoring

As far as possible, States Parties in Asia and the Pacifichave reported that all trends pertaining to the seriousnessof risks and threats to World Heritage properties (as out-lined in Chapter 4) need to be assessed over the long term.Without longitudinal data, short-term high and lows incertain variables will be indistinguishable from mediumand longer term patterns. A range of different variableswere mentioned in the reports, ranging from specificworkshops held on the conservation of blue tiles in CentralAsia, and numerous site-based trends relating to the

62

Management and Monitoring Challenges5©

Dep

artm

ent

of E

nviro

nmen

t an

d H

erita

ge, A

ustr

alia

A vast property to monitor: the Great Barrier Reef, Australia

growth of tourism, to schemes to promote regular annualmeetings of site managers at the national level in the caseof China.

Monitoring Challenges in Natural and MixedWorld Heritage properties

Monitoring often gets a bad name in natural heritagemanagement because of a legacy of wasted effort –examples abound where years of data have been col-lected but never used in any practical way to help shapethe future. Nevertheless, monitoring is an essential com-ponent of good management; combined with a processof evaluation and review, it is the means by which man-agers and others can learn about successes and failureswithin management and can adjust their managementapproaches in response to this information. So monitor-ing should provide for two primary functions: adaptivemanagement and reporting.

If monitoring is to fulfill these functions, it must bedirected towards collecting the right information. Butthis is not an easy task. Faced with an almost endlessarray of possible things to measure, how can a managerselect the most useful attributes to include in a monitor-ing program? A conceptual framework such as theIUCN World Commission on Protected AreasManagement Effectiveness Evaluation Framework(WCPA Framework) or the OECD Pressure-State-Response framework can assist in designing a coherentprogram. In the case of World Heritage properties, thevalues and attributes for which the site was nominatedprovide a starting point for developing a monitoringplan. These attributes and any threats to them shouldbe key elements of the monitoring regime.

In most cases, natural and mixed World Heritage prop-erties are also protected areas managed under someform of national legislation, with goals and objectivesthat extend beyond its World Heritage status. Managerswill be interested in developing a monitoring regimethat meets all their requirements for the property, notjust issues of particular relevance to World Heritage.This means that the monitoring program should addressall the objectives of management. Information on statusand threats alone is also not sufficient, especially for therequirements of adaptive management. It is not enoughto know whether progress is being made towards theachievement of objectives or whether values have beenmaintained. It is also important to understand whymanagement is succeeding or failing, so that adjust-ments in management programs can be made, and newapproaches can be tried where progress is not satisfactory.

Monitoring the adequacy and appropriateness of man-agement resources, systems and processes can providethis explanatory information. Taken together withknowledge of outcomes, it can provide the basis for atruly adaptive approach to management.

Ideally, this sort of regular monitoring at the site levelshould underpin the Periodic Reporting process forWorld Heritage properties. The full details of the moni-toring results would not be included in the report, andthe indicators being used would vary from site to site,but the information base from which the periodic reportis derived would be richer and more consistent acrosssites.

A project testing the application of the WCPAFramework for monitoring and reporting in naturalWorld Heritage sites is being carried out with three pilotsites: Keoladeo and Kaziranga National Parks in India,and Royal Chitwan National Park in Nepal. Informationon the project is available at the website www.enhancingheritage.net, including copies ofassessment methodologies and assessments undertakenin the three South Asian World Heritage properties.

Almost without exception, most of the Section II periodicreports provided basic statistics of visitor numbers whichclearly show the rate of growth of human pressure on theWorld Heritage properties. In some cases, where ticketsare required to access a property, visitors are counted usingsophisticated turnstiles (Himeji Jo, Japan; Huanglong,China). In many others, such as for historic cities, visitornumbers are estimated according to statistics derived from numerous different sources in diverse locations(Kathmandu, Nepal; Angkor, Cambodia).

Ecological and physical processes, in particular, oftenrequire detailed observation data to reliably track changesover time. The Periodic Reports for Itchan Kala andBukhara (Uzbekistan), for example, place considerableemphasis on accurate scientific data pertaining to fluctua-tions in the level of the water table, which affect the build-up of salt efflorescence in the earthen architecture. Waterreplenishment levels are equally indispensable for the bal-ance of globally significant wetlands such as KeoladeoNational Park (India), which must be able to quantify thenecessary level of river and rain-fed water to replenish thewetland ecosystem for nesting migratory birds.

Linking Biodiversity Conservation andSustainable tourism

An innovative United Nations Foundation (UNF) projectentitled ‘Linking Conservation of Biodiversity andSustainable Tourism at World Heritage sites’, which aimsto train local communities to work in the ecotourismindustry, has been launched by UNESCO’s WorldHeritage Centre, the United Nations EnvironmentProgramme (UNEP) and the RARE Center for TropicalConservation.

63


The project brings together representatives from naturaland cultural World Heritage sites, the tourism industryand the local community for on-site training sessions inconservation, education, planning, business develop-ment and marketing techniques. Awareness-raisingactivities will help local residents and businesses (hotels,restaurants, transportation, etc.), among others, tounderstand the value of the World Heritage sites’resources and the effects of tourism on the environ-ment, as well as how to promote responsible visits.

As Art Pedersen, World Heritage Consultant on tourismand visitor management points out, there is no quick-fixremedy: “If there is anything we have learned abouttourism over the past thirty years, it is a process ofengaging the industry, protected area management andlocal people. In this process, goals and objectives areset, standards are made and monitored over the longterm. This is easy to explain in theory but difficult to putinto practice. Like anything in sustainable development,there is no end to this process.”

UNF gave US$ 1,5 million as seed money to start theproject and went on to offer another US$ 500.000pledge, which was matched by Aveda Corporation inJanuary 2002. The operational phase of the project waslaunched in 2003.

Two Indonesian World Heritage properties as PilotSites

Out of the six World Heritage project sites, two arelocated in Asia: Ujung Kulon and Komodo Nationalparks in Indonesia. In Komodo the goal of the initiativeis to help address the threats to marine biodiversity byprofessionalizing existing tourism services and develop-ing new tourism products, such as an aquatic nature trail, to foster awareness in areas of the park that areseverely threatened by destructive fishing practices. InUjung Kulon, the goal is to enhance local conservationawareness and build a stronger conservation con-stituency to protect the park from future threats byplanning and understanding the tourism market.

Present and Future Activities

At the present time, tourism/public use planning isgoing on with draft tourism/public use plans aimed forcompletion by May 2004 for both Komodo and UjungKulon. A conservation education campaign has beenlaunched in Komodo National Park to sensitise peopleto the conservation values of this site. Future activitiesinclude a conservation education campaign at UjungKulon and a marketing study for the future develop-ment of local products.

As observed by the site manager for the Great Barrier Reef(Australia), many natural World Heritage areas, both ter-restrial and marine, have some type of monitoring system.However, most of these monitoring programmes havebeen directed towards specifically biophysical or socialaspects, and have generally been undertaken as stand-alone monitoring or research tasks. From the perspectiveof Australian World Heritage areas with sophisticatedmonitoring arrangements, “few programmes provide anintegrated assessment of the overall state of their respec-tive World Heritage areas”, or specifically monitor theattributes of properties as World Heritage properties.While there are some key principles for monitoring naturalareas, the report notes, “many of these have been derivedfrom programmes unrelated to World Heritage which mayhave very different objectives”. (Periodic Report, Section II)

Reliable, comparable and cost-effective indicators arehowever still in the very earliest stages of development formany biodiversity conservation projects. In many of thePeriodic Reports for natural World Heritage properties, sitemanagers continue to use surveys of keystone predatorspecies such as tigers (Sunderbans and Manas, India, RoyalChitwan, Nepal) or rhinoceroses (Ujung Kulon, Indonesia,and Kaziranga, India), as a proxy measure for ecosystemhealth. Given the period of reporting for propertiesinscribed on the World Heritage List up to 1994, thisreflects many of the preoccupations of the conservationmovement at the time of inscription. However, more com-plex monitoring questions are also being posed. In thecase of Ujung Kulon (Indonesia), the site management isincreasingly concerned by the possibility of inbreedingdepression occurring amongst the small relict populationof Javanese Rhinos.

In a more limited range of cases, World Heritage proper-ties with extremely strict restrictions on ecological distur-bance, such as Nanda Devi (India), have also been able toconduct impressive systematic censuses of all the majorknown animal species to occur in the park every 10 years.In addition, the Tasmanian Wilderness (Australia) has alsodiscovered new marine species within the protected areaand has submitted a revised statement of significance toreflect the enhanced authenticity of the World Heritageproperty.

64

Management and Monitoring Challenges5©

UN

ESC

O /

F.A

lcoc

eba

Komodo National Park, Indonesia

Spatial Scale for Monitoring

Monitoring and evaluation of impacts and performancefor an entire protected area at the broad, landscape scaleis proving most challenging. In the case of large protectedareas involving whole landscapes, changes in the type orintensity of risks are especially difficult to monitor due tothe range of social, economic and political influences orig-inating far beyond the immediate protected area bound-aries. Nevertheless, the monitoring of specific criteria forlarger individual World Heritage properties, as well asWorld Heritage cluster areas, are gradually being developed.

Many of the Section II reports for China discuss at lengththe monitoring of long distance air and water pollution, asthey interrelate and impact the die-back of pines aroundMt. Huangshan, as well as other ecological and hydrolog-ical processes in mountainous regions in the country suchas Tai Shan, Huanglong and Jiu Zhai Gou. Individual mon-uments such as the Taj Mahal (India), similarly, face severethreats of “yellowing of the marble” (Periodic Report,Section II) connected to previously unrestricted industrialand manufacturing activity in the surrounding economicregion.

As reflected in many of the Section II Reports for naturaland mixed properties, a growing recognition is emergingwithin the protected area movement that the biodiversityof relatively large ecosystems must be tackled at a land-scape scale, including different forms of land use, eco-nomic options and alternative livelihoods. In particular, theVietnamese government has taken far-reaching steps tocreate an integrated monitoring system for Ha Long Bay(Vietnam), which will address the burgeoning demo-graphic pressure in the region and the associated impactslinked to sewerage, discharge from cargo ships, industrialeffluent, aesthetic damage, and many other sources.

Mapping technologies have progressed a great deal inmany cases since the first World Heritage properties wereinscribed on the list between 1979 and 1994. At that time,States Parties often provided very rudimentary informationconcerning the boundaries and topographic co-odinatesof properties. In many cases, nomination forms only pro-

vided a written description of the whereabouts of sites. Akey objective of the Periodic Reporting process was there-fore to stimulate the relevant Ministries to re-examine theoriginal nominations and provide up-to-date maps of the cadastral and topographical details of properties.Unfortunately, this aspect of the Periodic Reportingprocess suffered from significant under-reporting.However, two States Parties (Australia and Sri Lanka), pro-vided excellent resolution maps to facilitate the work ofthe World Heritage Committee, while other States Partiesdid not submit updated high resolution maps of the properties.

Future Steps in Management and Monitoring ofWorld Heritage

In preparation for the next Periodic Reporting exercise forthe Asia-Pacific region, further simple indicators for bothnatural and cultural heritage will need to be developed.One possibility has been to examine some of the indirectand proximate causes which affect World Heritage prop-erties. In some cases, the intensity of poaching at a givenproperty may be connected with fluctuations in commod-ity prices at the international level. The illegal black marketprice in rhinoceros horn, for example, will have a strongimpact on the incidence of poaching around natural properties representing the last strongholds of this species’ populations, namely: Ujung Kulon National Park(Indonesia), Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal) andManas National Park (India).

In terms of the large-scale landscapes mentioned above,aerial surveys have proved to be an innovative and effec-tive tool for conservation and management in WorldHeritage properties in other parts of the world. Detailedphotographs and other data collected through low-levelflight surveys have proved to be powerful tools to raiseawareness of policy makers who have thereafter strength-ened protected area management. In particular, appliedaerial surveys have led to: (i) accurate assessment of majorthreats to World Heritage properties; (ii) clear communica-tion of these threats to policy makers and the mediathrough detailed photographs; (iii) targeted responses tocritical threats in affected areas; (iv) engagement of multi-ple donors to work collaboratively in addressing keythreats; and (v) establishment of a long-term ‘baseline’against which future management efforts can be moni-tored through follow-up aerial surveys.

The follow-up actions to the Periodic Reporting exerciseplanned in the near future, in close collaboration withnational authorities and site managers, will attempt toadequately address the management and monitoringneeds identified through this first Periodic Reporting exer-cise. In this follow-up phase, management and monitoringchallenges to conservation of World Heritage propertiesshould be dealt with together, capitalising on the expert-ise already acquired by certain States Parties and conser-vation agencies in this field.

65


The industrialised river bank opposite Taj Mahal, India

© U

NES

CO

/ F.

Jin

g

Education, Information and New Technologies

67

Cultural Centre at Uluru, Uluru Kata Tjuta, Australia

© UNESCO / S.Titchen

6

Often viewed as the hallmark of a praiseworthytourist destination, the World Heritage designationis not always understood as being the result of a decision combining historical, archaeological, scientific and aesthetic criteria. The World HeritageConvention thus remains an obscure internationaltreaty to many people around the world, even tothose living with and within World Heritage proper-ties. However, the increasing growth of the WorldHeritage List of properties of outstanding universalvalue, together with the growing interest forUNESCO’s World Heritage flagship programme, hascreated a need for enhanced capacity building atlocal, national and global levels.

As Mr Nicolas Stanley-Price, Director-General ofICCROM, recalled in an intervention during the‘International Congress for the 30th Anniversary of the World Heritage Convention’ (Venice, 14-16November 2002), it is a grave misconception tobelieve of heritage that “if it has already been therefor a thousand years, surely it is going to be all rightfor a few more”. The development of new conserva-tion and management technologies, the unstablepolitical situation of some countries, and the impor-tance of preserving cultural and natural heritage as ameans to ensure local sustainable development,have all contributed to rethinking our approaches toawareness-raising and capacity-building. These twoobjectives can only be achieved through an accruedinterest of both decision-makers and the public ineducation, information and new technologies.

Although the focus of the national and site-specificPeriodic Reports submitted by the Asia-Pacific StatesParties is primarily on management and monitoringissues, a significant part of the reports addressesneeds in professional training and capacity building,awareness raising among local populations and sitestakeholders, as well as World Heritage educationtargeted towards the young people.

Professional Training and Capacity Building

The assessment of training and capacity-building needs assubmitted by the States Parties in the region shows a greatdisparity of situations. Two methods have been used toanalyse the information provided:1. The first method consists in the differentiation between

various stages of development in training and capacitybuilding, according to certain criteria such as the needfor basic or specialised professional training, the needfor international cooperation in capacity building, etc.The result of this classification can be visualised onGraph 1.

2. The second method emphasises sub-regional trendsand attempts to identify specific needs to be addressedin priority. The result of this method is developed hereafter.

Stage Criteria

1 • Training needs in most of the fields of heritageconservation and management

• No local and/or national capacity- buildingfacilities

• International co-operation required

2 • Training needs in certain specialised fields ofconservation and management

• Existence of local and national capacity build-ing/ professional training institutes

• International co-operation required

3 • Training needs in heritage legislation, utilisa-tion of new technologies and new conserva-tion techniques

• National and sub-regional collaboration forcapacity building

4 • Provides training on sub-regional and/orregional basis

• Develops new conservation techniques andnew management and monitoring systems

West Central Asia

Apart from Iran, professional training in the sub-region issomewhat underdeveloped, due to the very recent atten-tion paid to natural and cultural heritage by nationalauthorities. Training needs identified by most of the StatesParties include training in all fields of heritage conservationand management, as well as archaeology and ecology.This lack of professional capacities for heritage conserva-tion and management is in contradiction with CentralAsia’s abundance in cultural and natural heritage.

There is a strong desire to co-operate on capacity-buildingissues amongst Central Asian States Parties facing similar

68

Education, Information and New Technologies6

Graph 1: Assessment of the training and capacity buildingneeds of the Asia-Pacific States Parties, according to 4 stages(criteria and legend above)

needs. Kyrgyz experts, for example, have already followedtraining workshops in Kazakhstan, Iran and Pakistan,some of these workshops having been jointly organised byUNESCO and ICCROM. Iran and Uzbekistan insist on pro-moting further international exposure of their nationalexperts to international conservation and managementtechniques. They simultaneously stress the great potentialof the region to provide comprehensive knowledge onspecific local architectural features, such as earthen archi-tecture. As regards the latter, an international trainingworkshop was organised on this subject in Tchoga Zanbilin 2002, and Iran hosted the ‘9th International Conferenceon the Study and Conservation of Earthen Architecture’ inYazd, in November 2003.

South Asia

On training and capacity building matters, a strong dis-crepancy exists between reports submitted by nationalauthorities and reports submitted by site managers forIndia and Pakistan. While national authorities acknowl-edge the scope and variety of professional training oppor-tunities offered to local and national experts throughvarious institutes, research centres and university degrees– of which an impressive list exists for India – site managerstend to focus on the basic needs of their staff, whichencompass training needs for heritage management,modern conservation techniques, structural engineering,security techniques, and diverse surveying and drawingtechniques.

There is a noticeable trend in the sub-region to providenatural heritage sites with better technical equipment (GISand remote sensing techniques) and with more specialisedpersonnel, such as in Bhutan or Nepal, for example.

“The States Parties to this Convention shall endeavour byall appropriate means, and in particular by the educationaland information programmes, to strengthen appreciationand respect by their peoples of the cultural and naturalheritage defined in Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention.”

Article 27, World Heritage Convention

South-East Asia

Very few States Parties in the sub-region have identifiedand described their training needs at either national or sitelevel. Requests for capacity building originate mainly fromthe countries of the Indochinese peninsula – Cambodia,Laos and Vietnam – and from Myanmar.

Regarding natural heritage, Indonesia, Malaysia andThailand have developed modern means of managementand monitoring, including GIS, GPS and remote sensing,but their staff lacks training in these modern tools, in thecase of Komodo National Park in Indonesia and ThungyaiHuai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries in Thailand, as well

as in various nature-related fields like “forestry, biology,fisheries, and marine sciences” (Ujung Kulong NationalPark Periodic Report, Section II).

North-East Asia

The sub-region features a wide range of national trainingcapacities, from the general lack of expertise of DPR Koreaand Mongolian conservation specialists to the highly inno-vative Japanese and Republic of Korean approaches ofheritage conservation and management, with China rep-resenting an intermediary stage within that wide spec-trum. As pointed out by the Chinese national andsite-specific reports, basic training needs are covered bynational institutes and training courses, but there is agrowing need for training in heritage legislation, and forincreasing international exposure of the Chinese experts.

Japan and the Republic of Korea are striving to develop thecapacity building of their neighbours, through organisa-tions such as ACCU (Asia/Pacific Cultural Centre forUNESCO), which has organised sub-regional and regionaltraining courses on the following issues:• Survey and restoration of historic monuments• Conservation of wooden structures• Preservation and restoration of cultural heritage

The Pacific

There is a gap between the professional capacities ofAustralia and New Zealand, particularly in conservationand management of natural sites, and those of the otherPacific island countries, which suffer from insufficienttraining, funding and awareness raising.

Once the on-site personnel have achieved a certain level ofconservation and management skills, efficient long-termcapacity building of such personnel can only be obtainedthrough regular enhancement of their skills. To this end,the Heritage Management Branch of the Department ofthe Environment and Heritage, the governmental author-ity in charge of World Heritage issues in Australia, has heldtwo-day workshops for World Heritage site managersevery one to two years since 1993. At the World HeritageCapacity-Building Workshop in the Pacific, held in Apia(Samoa) in February 2003, the Pacific island countriesinsisted on the need to strengthen professional capacitiesin collaboration with local actors such as SPREP (SouthPacific Regional Environmental Programme) or PIMA(Pacific Islands Museum Association).

If training needs are acknowledged by most of the StatesParties, only a few of them provide a detailed list of theskills to be enhanced. This detailed list is provided by sitemanagers who wish to underline the specific needs oftheir staff members, but does not necessarily reflect anational trend. Thus, it is important that site managers andnational government-appointed experts come together todetermine concerted actions in addressing the issue ofcapacity-building at a national and/or sub-regional level.

69

Education, Information and New Technologies 6

(World) Heritage Education

Professional training and capacity building is one compo-nent of the educational process leading to better knowl-edge of World Heritage. World Heritage educationembraces a series of methods to develop interest andinvolvement among young people regarding heritageissues in general and World Heritage issues in particular. Inthe Asia-Pacific region, the percentage of young people inthe total population of a country is higher than the worldaverage. Consequently, if integrated into school curriculaand started at an early stage, the impact of World Heritageeducation on the long-term preservation of humankind’sprecious heritage could be substantial, and needs to beexplored further.

Asian Academy for Culture and HeritageManagement

Background and ObjectivesIn response to the increasing demand for improved pro-fessional management of Asia’s cultural heritageresources, UNESCO and ICCROM have established theAsian Academy for Culture and Heritage Management,a network of institutes of higher learning throughoutthe Asia-Pacific region that are engaged in the researchand teaching of heritage conservation and manage-ment. The primary objective of the Asian Academy is toupgrade the expertise in culture resource managementwithin the region.

Network PrinciplesWith strengthening the linkage between its memberinstitutions, the Asian Academy promotes the followingprinciples: • Cross-registration of students, • Exchange of faculty members, • Common licensing, • Shared information database.

Network Activities• The main activities offered by the Asian Academy

consist of: • Post-graduate training, • Short certificate courses in specific management skills, • Joint field schools, • Seminars and workshops for in-service professionals

to renew and update their professional knowledge,• Collaborative research and publication, • Accreditation and licensing, • Distance-learning (web-based) extramural diploma

courses for mid-career professionals.

Programmes and activities developed by members ofthe Asian Academy are shared and available to all insti-tutions involved. For more information, go towww.unescobkk.org/culture/asian-academy

The UNESCO ‘World Heritage in Young Hands’Project

The idea of developing educational tools to promoteWorld Heritage in schools started in 1994 and relates tothe original idea of the authors of the World HeritageConvention to link promotion of the Convention andpreservation of the national cultural and natural heritage(cf. Article 27 of the World Heritage Convention). The‘UNESCO Young People’s Participation in World HeritagePreservation and Promotion’ project was set up in collabo-ration with UNESCO’s Education Sector, using the‘Associated Schools Project’ Network (ASP-Net).

The World Heritage Education Kit, named ‘World Heritagein Young Hands’, has been translated into the followingAsia-Pacific languages: Chinese, Bahasa, Japanese,Laotian, Russian, Urdu, Uzbek and Vietnamese.Translations in Hindi, Korean, and Tagalog are currentlyunderway. However, the national reports of some of thecountries for which a translation into the national lan-guage exists, do not always mention the utilisation of theKit (India and Pakistan for example). South-East Asia andthe Pacific island countries are particularly keen on devel-oping the use of the Kit, and on training teachers in howto use and adapt it to local conditions. In certain countriesthe Kit has even been adapted to make extensive use ofnational examples of World Heritage, such as the nationalparks of Tongariro and Te Wahipounamu in the case ofNew Zealand.

Integration of Heritage Education into SchoolCurricula

Where the World Heritage Education Kit is not used, theStates Parties have either already integrated heritage edu-cation into their school curricula, or are planning to do so.There is, however, an informal debate concerning theschool level at which heritage education should be intro-duced. Of the 30% of Asia-Pacific States Parties who haveintroduced heritage education into their official schoolcurricula, more than 50% implement these special educa-tion programmes at the secondary level. Primary educationin World Heritage is focused mainly on natural heritage,especially in Bhutan and Sri Lanka. At university level,World Heritage education is usually incorporated into theacademic curriculum of archaeology, art history or archi-tecture students, as in Australia, China or Kyrgyzstan.

One must presume from the responses of the StatesParties that, when not clearly indicated, the heritage edu-cation provided does not concern World Heritage proper-ties as such. Because elaboration of school curricula can

70


Asian Academy Field Schools:• 2003: Macao• 2004: India• 2005: Viet Nam• 2006: Australia

often be a long and tedious process, it is important to pro-pose an integrated education to World Heritage proper-ties, through the World Heritage Education Kit forexample.

On and Off-site Heritage Education

Integration of heritage education into school curricula isnot the only way to promote World Heritage or nationalheritage in general. On-site activities such as guided toursfor children (China, Pakistan), children’s participation indrawing competitions (India, Japan), or special children’son-site attractions contribute to making World Heritageproperties more familiar to children of all ages. Local festi-vals, whether on- or off-site, also contribute to incorporat-ing World Heritage into a broader cultural and socialenvironment.

Among the numerous initiatives described by the StatesParties of the region, the following should be noted:• In India, to promote natural World Heritage amongst

younger generations, ‘eco-clubs’ have been introducedall over the country as “a non-formal proactive system toinvolve school children in conservation education”.(Periodic Report, Section I)

• In Japan, individual schools are encouraged to developtheir own World Heritage education materials;

• In New Zealand, the Ministry of Education has set up the‘LEARNZ’ initiative, “a computer-based, interactive edu-cation programme for New Zealand schools”, includingmodules on Te Wahipounamu and Tongariro NationalParks. (Periodic Report, Section I)

Regardless of these national efforts to raise awarenessamong school children on the outstanding value of WorldHeritage properties, and on the need to protect them fromthe many threats they are facing on a day-to-day basis, itremains unclear whether World Heritage education, asdescribed by the national and site-specific reports, merelyaddresses national World Heritage properties, or WorldHeritage as a whole.

Information and Awareness Raising

Article 27 of the World Heritage Convention emphasisesthe need for “educational and information programmes”to ensure the support and respect of the peoples to theirnational World Heritage. From a general point of view,much has been done in the last ten years to raise aware-ness. Programmes such as ‘Schools Adopt a Monument’,or ‘City beneath the City’, as well as increasing media cov-erage of the World Heritage properties and related aware-ness raising activities, have contributed to a global sense ofpride and respect for this unique heritage of humankind.

What is the situation in the Asia-Pacific region today? Thecharacteristics of some of the sites in the region, such asadministered by religious authorities, located withinindigenous territories, and privately owned vernacular her-itage, etc., makes awareness raising a particularly sensitiveand important issue.

Dissemination of Information on World HeritageIssues

National and local authorities use different means ofinformation dissemination to strengthen awareness onWorld Heritage issues. While at the national level, mediacampaigns are organised and broadcasted on televisionand radio, local authorities prefer small-scale projects suchas photo exhibitions, publication of leaflets and brochures,or information guides. During the regional consultationmeeting held at UNESCO Headquarters in March 2003,the representatives of 25 Asian States Parties agreed thatmore attention should be given to television (Star TV, UNTV, etc.) in raising awareness of both adults and children,together with a desirable increase in on-line and on-sitepublications on World Heritage properties, both nation-wide and worldwide.

Stamps, postcards or coins are a common and inexpensiveway of promoting national World Heritage, and are mentioned as means to promote World Heritage byBangladesh, China, India, Japan, Nepal and Uzbekistan.Some local or national authorities propose original promo-tional ideas:

71

Education, Information and New Technologies 6©

UN

ESC

O /

F.Jin

g

Image 1: World Heritage Education Kit translated intoIndonesian and Chinese

Graph 2: Percentage of Asia-Pacific States Parties using theWorld Heritage Education Kit, by sub-region and region

60%

40%

20%

0%

28,6%

42,9%

WestCentral

Asia

SouthAsia

SouthEastAsia

NorthEastAsia

Pacific TotalAsia-Pacific

40%

8,3%

30,8%

50%

• Kyrgyzstan organised a TV marathon to collect funds forthe conservation of national heritage and potentialWorld Heritage properties;

• The Republic of Korea published a Cultural HeritageCharter in 1997 to promote public awareness of thenation’s unique heritage;

• In Luang Prabang (Laos), a ‘Heritage House’ was estab-lished in co-operation with UNESCO, the EuropeanUnion and the Laotian government in 1995. The mainfunction of this institution is to authorise constructionpermits and provide advice on heritage legislation andrehabilitation of vernacular heritage.

However elaborate this dissemination of information onWorld Heritage issues is, it will never replace basic andcomprehensive signage of a World Heritage property.Numerous States Parties in Asia and the Pacific still lackadequate presentation tools of their World Heritage prop-erties. This need for better on-site signage is acknowl-edged by Sri Lanka for the Old Town of Galle and itsFortifications, and the World Heritage Fund provided inter-national assistance to enhance site signage of the follow-ing World Heritage properties in the Asia-Pacific region:Taxila, the Shalamar Gardens and Fort of Lahore (both inPakistan), and the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway (India).

Despite more visual and interactive ways of disseminatinginformation on the World Heritage Convention and theregion’s properties, awareness raising is still predominantlydone through paper. In that sense, much remains to bedone in terms of translation of the official World Heritagedocuments – Convention, the Operational Guidelines forits implementation, Management Guidelines, etc. – intothe Asian and Pacific national languages.

Exploring Heritage Promotion Activities inUzbekistan

Since its ratification in 1993, Uzbekistan has been anactive State Party to the World Heritage Convention,with four cultural World Heritage sites inscribed (ItchanKala, Bukhara, Shakhrisyabz, Samarkand). The inscrip-tions were accompanied by promotional activities suchas TV and radio programmes and the release of specialcoins and stamps.

Promoting World Heritage Education

The ‘World Heritage in Young Hands’ video and theWorld Heritage Education Kit were translated intoUzbek and disseminated through the UNESCOAssociated Schools Project Network (ASPnet) in thecountry. The national school curriculum foresees tenhours per week for cultural heritage lessons. Between1997 and 2002, the Uzbek National Commission forUNESCO organised annual Central Asian Youth Campsfor secondary school students and teachers fromASPnet schools in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan

and Uzbekistan, which aimed to bring World HeritageEducation into classroom teaching and to encourageyoung people to participate in heritage conservation.

Linking Tangible and Intangible Heritage

The city of Bukhara was awarded the UNESCO City forPeace Prize 2000-2001, which paid tribute to the initia-tive of the municipality for stimulating museum activity,revitalising traditional handicrafts, developing culturaltourism and rehabilitating the historic city centre.

In 2001, the ‘Cultural Space of the Boysun district’, oneof the oldest inhabited places in the world, was nomi-nated a Masterpiece of Oral and Intangible Heritage ofHumankind by UNESCO. Its traditional rituals representa vital factor in cultural identity, promotion of creativityand the preservation of cultural diversity. Ignored by thecultural policy standpoint during the Soviet era, culturaltraditions are reviving through Open Folklore Festivals,which are supported by a UNESCO Funds-in-trust proj-ect on inventories and academic studies of the culturalspace of Boysun.

Raising Awareness of Local and NationalStakeholders

In recent years, the World Heritage Committee and theAdvisory Bodies (ICOMOS, IUCN, ICCROM) have stressedthe importance of encouraging participation of local com-munities in the presentation and conservation of WorldHeritage properties, together with accrued consultation ofconcerned local stakeholders during the preparation ofmanagement plans. In Asia and the Pacific, the results ofthe Periodic Reporting exercise show that there are fourmajor targets of awareness raising campaigns, excludingyoung people (already mentioned above): religious com-munities; national and regional policy makers; indigenouspeoples; and local communities.

72


© M

inis

try

of C

ultu

ral A

ffai

rs, U

zbek

ista

n

View of a mosque in Bukhara, Uzbekistan

A non-negligible number of Asian World Heritage proper-ties are sacred sites, or sites strongly linked to the daily cul-tural life of local communities. Traditional custodians aretherefore a priority target of information programmes andmedia campaigns. Religious custodians in particular, as inthe protected temples and churches of India, Sri Lanka,Cambodia, Thailand, the Philippines, China and Japan,often require special training on the meaning of WorldHeritage inscription, and on the conservation policy thataccompanies and thus guarantees World Heritage status.In Thailand, monks and lay people are regularly trained inbasic conservation techniques of historic religious archi-tecture. In the Philippines, vast awareness raising cam-paigns are organised for Catholic priests, since themanagement of the Baroque Churches of the Philippineslies within the hands of the Catholic Church.

Senior national policy makers and regional decision-mak-ers are the second target of awareness-raising campaigns.The need for better information among decision-makershas been acknowledged by States Parties from South-EastAsia, North-East Asia, and the smaller Pacific island coun-tries. Activities in that direction are also recommended atthe regional, or at least sub-regional level, but none of theStates Parties promoting this idea has provided an exam-ple of high-level roundtables to decide on a global regionalawareness raising strategy.

Indigenous peoples should not only be considered as localstakeholders, but need to be consulted on the least harm-ful way to protect and preserve the World Heritage prop-erties they are now sharing with the rest of the world. Inthe Pacific, enhanced participation of indigenous peoplesin the management of World Heritage properties is a toppriority. In other countries of the region, the participationof indigenous or ethnic communities needs to be devel-oped at the site level for the benefit of all.

Lastly, the hard work of NGOs in enhancing local aware-ness of World Heritage issues and in providing a forum forlocal stakeholders where they can express their needs anddesires should be recognised and encouraged. TheAustralian report reminds us that, “NGOs have made sub-stantial contributions towards the identification and man-agement of Australia’s World Heritage properties”

(Periodic Report, Section I). Countries like Myanmar, thePhilippines, Thailand or Japan underline the role of NGOsand local ‘World Heritage Committees’ in raising aware-ness of both local communities and national policy mak-ers, while other countries like Mongolia and Sri Lankastrive to strengthen participation of NGOs in the informa-tion dissemination campaigns organised by nationalauthorities.

The information provided on awareness raising activities isusually more concise in the site specific reports. At thenational level, activities tend to be limited to seminars,publications and / or academic programmes. This does notmean that only local initiatives should be promoted. Thetwo-level approaches, national and local, are complemen-tary and address different needs.

The Use of New Information Technologiesin the Conservation and Promotion ofWorld Heritage in the Region

The results of the national and site reports for the Asia-Pacific region show great disparities between StatesParties, but also between cultural and natural sites in theiraccess to and use of new technologies. Access to comput-ers and the Internet does not necessarily induce the use of advanced electronic recording, and documentation andinformation management systems, such as GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), Reflectorless ElectronicDistance Measurement (REDM) or satellite imaging. TheStates Parties’ answers sometimes reflect radically differ-ent policies in implementing new information technolo-gies into heritage conservation and management.

New Technologies for Identification andConservation of World Heritage

The majority of States Parties have replied to the Questionnaireas if access to information technologies only meant accessto it for the management authorities and its personnel.Indeed, even at the identification stage, new technologiesgreatly facilitate the work of architects and archaeologistsand other professionals as they pay more attention to theconservation of the potential World Heritage property.

73

Education, Information and New Technologies 6

Graph 3: On-site Access to New Technologies for Cultural Heritage properties

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

30,9%

63,6%

Noinformation

Access to PC

No

Yes

5,5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

45,5%

49,1%

Access to Internet

5,5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

58,3%

10%

Use of GIS

31,7%

GIS is the most commonly non-destructive mapping tech-nique used by the Asia-Pacific States Parties. Ten per centof the cultural World Heritage management authoritiesand 34,4% of the natural and mixed World Heritage man-agement authorities declare using GIS for managementand monitoring purposes. The States Parties currentlyusing GIS include Iran, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Cambodia,Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, China and Australia.Still, approximately 30% of the site specific reports do notanswer the question on the use of GIS, which could eithermean poor knowledge of the terminology or lack of inter-est in and/or awareness of such techniques. There is astrong will among some of the Asia-Pacific States Partiesto develop their capacities in GIS and other non-destruc-tive mapping techniques, especially in Sri Lanka, Pakistan,Laos, Indonesia, China and New Zealand.

Before even considering the training needs in these usefultechnologies in the domain of management and monitor-ing of World Heritage, one must consider the basic needsin equipment, consisting in appropriate software, hard-ware and access to Internet. Only 63,6% of the culturalsite managers and 84.4% of the natural and mixed sitemanagers have access to PCs, and for some, this access isonly possible at the regional or national office of their gov-ernment agency, as in India for example. This lack of basichardware for daily maintenance and management of thesite hinders the utilisation of management databases andmore advanced information management systems (IMS).One also should consider the discrepancies between cul-tural and natural sites, in their access to and use of newinformation technologies (see graphs 2 and 3 before).

On-site access to the Internet is gathering momentum inthe region. However, still less than 50% of cultural sites,and around 76% of natural and mixed sites, enjoy speedycommunications through electronic mail facilities.Although the site managers do not consider access toInternet a priority, this should not be neglected as it con-tributes to strengthening communications betweennational and local heritage conservation agencies, andbetween site authorities and the international WorldHeritage community. North-East Asian States Parties areparticularly interested in developing a network of sitemanagers in the sub-region to share expertise and provide

good cases in management and monitoring of their WorldHeritage properties. Others agree on developing regionalnetworks for the exchange of professionals by creating on-line databases or rosters.

Although new information technologies may not be con-sidered indispensable tools in the management and mon-itoring of World Heritage properties, they nonethelesscontribute to creating a multiplier effect at the site level bybroadening the possibilities of site managers, especiallywhere sub-regional similarities could be tackled togetherrather than on a national case-by-case basis.

New Technologies for Presentation and Promotion ofWorld Heritage

Only Thailand, in its site reports, makes a clear distinctionbetween access to IT for site management authorities andaccess to IT for visitors on-site. States Parties generallydescribed their presentation and promotion strategiesunder the ‘Visitor Management’ part of Section II or inSection I.

On-site presentation of World Heritage properties can beenhanced through multimedia stations and interactivetouch-screens. On-site access to the property’s website canalso be an easy way of providing additional and variedinformation to visitors. Electronic publications and free dis-tribution of CD-Roms further promote World Heritageproperties off-site. Once the infrastructure has beenacquired and the IT skills developed, electronic dissemina-tion of information is an inexpensive and attractive way ofpresenting and promoting a site’s unique heritage.National authorities and site managers who are benefitingfrom these electronic means of promotion include those inCambodia, China, Australia and New Zealand, wherethere is a very proactive attitude towards new technologies.

The long-term requirements of conservation and manage-ment of World Heritage may also be accommodated viaelectronic or digital tools. Digitalisation of archives andimportant documents secure the institutional memory of asite and assists site managers in analysing previous trendsin conservation and management of the site they are man-aging. In the Asian region, Indonesia has taken the lead in

74


Graph 4: On-site Access to New Technologies for Natural Heritage properties

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0%

84,8%

No information

Access to PC

No

Yes

15,2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

9,1%

75,8%

Access to Internet

15,2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

37,5%

34,4%

Use of GIS

28,1%

digitalising archived information. Development of data-bases for management and monitoring purposes shouldalso be encouraged. Visitor data systems, as in Australia,the Central Asian Rock computer database developed byKazakhstan in collaboration with UNESCO and theNorwegian Funds-in-Trust, or the Urban Managementinformation system used for Kathmandu Valley in Nepal,are all examples of how new technologies can positivelyenhance the understanding of a World Heritage property,while at the same time assisting management authoritiesin keeping track of the site’s institutional memory.

Geographical Information Systems and AsianWorld Heritage

Since 1995, UNESCO’s World Heritage Centre and theUNESCO Regional Adviser for Culture in the Asia-PacificRegion have been conducting a pilot programme in fivecities in South-East Asia (extended to South Asia),designed to involve the entire city in the conservationand protection process.

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) are being usedat the following inscribed or potential World Heritageproperties for the identification and management ofcultural resources:

• Angkor, Cambodia• Vat Phou Champasak Cultural Landscape,

Lao People’s Democratic Republic• Plain of Jars, Lao People’s Democratic Republic• Patan Durbar, Kathmandu Valley, Nepal• Rice Terraces of the Philippines Cordilleras, Philippines • Historic Town of Sukhothai, Thailand• Complex of Hué Monuments, Vietnam • My Son, Vietnam

Below are excerpts from the report prepared by theUNESCO Regional Advisor for Culture in the Asia-Pacificregion concerning the implementation of the pilot programme, known as ‘LEAP - Integrated CommunityDevelopment and Cultural Heritage Site Preservation inAsia and the Pacific Through Local Effort’- with particular reference to the use of GIS:

Developing practical, easy-to-use, yet state-of-the-artmanagement tools and the training of local managers inthe skills to use the tools are essential components ofany successful programme of local community manage-ment of heritage sites. The goal of developing easy-to-use management tools like GIS is two-fold:

1. To assist the local managers to inventory and docu-ment their site, to categorise buildings for preserva-tion, restoration and adaptive re-use, and to have anintegrated overview of the conservation needs oftheir site. In doing so, they will also be better able toprioritise and to respond to the needs of the commu-nities inhabiting their sites, and to work togetherwith them in developing the activities and plans envi-sioned by the community, and

2. To place the control and knowledge of heritage man-agement directly into the hands of the local man-agers by giving them the training, technical expertiseand equipment necessary to carry out the task ofheritage management. Therefore, project training forGIS in the developing of management tools has con-centrated on five key areas:• Training in data need-analysis, both at the macro

(area) level and at the micro (individual structure) level;• Introduction of simple, 'entry-level' GIS systems that

novice users are able to manage independently onlow-cost, portable battery-powered laptop comput-ers. In this way the managers will be able to inputand manage spatial information and attribute her-itage data directly in the field. In doing so they havean enhanced sense of 'ownership' in the system;

• Capacity building to enhance the existing heritagedocumentation skills of the site managers and theirinstitutions;

• Strengthening of local management agencies(offices, work units) to enable them to develop thenecessary skills to support and ensure successfulimplementation of additional and upgraded tech-nologies at a later date. This has been achieved byconducting computer training and assisting agen-cies in establishing rudimentary heritage documen-tation systems;

• Constructing an 'open' system, i.e. one that catersto the data needs of as wide a range of end-usersas possible. Because the cost of implementing evena simple GIS system entails a relatively substantialcapital investment (of between US$10,000-$30,000), it is important that it services the needs ofa wide range of local institutions and organisations.

75

Education, Information and New Technologies 6©

UN

ESC

O /

Nat

com

Vie

tnam

GIS mapping used for the Citadel of Hue and associated monuments

Conscious of their own limitations, the States Parties ofthe region have nevertheless expressed in unambiguousterms their growing interest for the potential of new infor-mation technologies applied to heritage identification,conservation, management and promotion. Since we only“preserve what we love, [...] love what we understand,and [...] understand what we have learned”8, the learningprocess is the cornerstone of the awareness raising andcapacity building pyramid that UNESCO, the WorldHeritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are promotingworldwide. At a time when Asia-Pacific World Heritageproperties increasingly appear in the front line, not alwaysfor glorious reasons, the World Heritage Conventionremains unknown to many in the region. Disseminatinginformation on its purposes, legal groundings and histori-cal achievements should be the first step of any localand/or national information and promotion campaign.

76


8. Expression recalled by Mr Christoph Hauser, Director of the CultureProgramming Departmentat SudWestRundfunk (SWR), Germany,during the ‘International Congress for the 30th Anniversary of theWorld Heritage Convention’, 14-16 November 2002, Venice, Italy.

Resources and Partnerships for Conservation

77

Lijiang, China

© UNESCO

7

Although recognised for their outstanding universalvalue, many World Heritage properties in the Asia-Pacific region still face considerable financial andtechnical limitations. Many of the Section I andSection II periodic reports state that World Heritageproperties in Asia still rely heavily on regular gov-ernment budgets to fund staff and other mainte-nance costs. At the same time, the reports alsoindicate that the flow of International Assistanceprovided by the World Heritage Fund, extra-budget-ary resources mobilised by the UNESCO WorldHeritage Centre and the Division of CulturalHeritage, as well as numerous bilateral and multilat-eral donors, continue to provide a vital ‘financial life-line’ for many natural and cultural World Heritageproperties.

National and Regional Resources for WorldHeritage Properties

Preserving and promoting a World Heritage property,maintaining its outstanding universal value, and ensuringits authenticity and integrity is a costly mission thatrequires both regular funds for daily maintenance andmore consequent funding for emergency situations, suchas natural disasters or conflict.

The lack of detailed information concerning the local andnational funding mechanisms for World Heritage proper-ties, and more specifically the lack of figures in the nationaland site-specific Periodic Reports received from the Asia-Pacific States Parties does not permit an in-depth study ofthe current situation in the region. However, some trendsin funding can be identified, including outstanding exam-ples of financial success.

Types of Local and National Funding Mechanisms forWorld Heritage

Various funding mechanisms are being used by the Asia-Pacific States Parties to ensure proper budget allocationsto their World Heritage properties. The most commonfunding mechanism in the region is still government fund-ing. This is particularly the case for cultural heritage inSouth Asia, where the majority of funds for personnel,conservation and promotion of World Heritage propertiesis allocated on a regular basis by government authorities;either a ministerial department, such as the Department ofArchaeology of Nepal or the Archaeological SurveyDepartment of Sri Lanka, or a semi-autonomous entitydepending directly on the Central Government, such asthe Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Although govern-ment funding has many advantages, it is considered bymost site managers in the Asian region as insufficient toaddress the challenges of conservation and managementof the World Heritage properties. In the case of West-Central Asia, the often limited character of governmentfunding does not allow for any long-term planning in thepreservation of World Heritage, and forces site managers

to search for additional funding at the local or interna-tional level.

From a regional perspective, government funding is seenas insufficient to cover the expenses related to site conser-vation and management, except for certain natural andmixed heritage properties in North-East Asia, and somenatural heritage properties in the Pacific.

Tourism revenue collection is a relatively secure means ofcollecting funds for World Heritage properties, providedthe necessary initial investments have been made in basictourism infrastructures. In certain cases, admission fees arethe first source of funds of a World Heritage managementauthority, before government funding. In China, theRepublic of Korea and Japan, the important revenues oftourism are often allocated to the restoration of the siteitself, but the funds can also be re-invested immediatelyfor future investment gains. Admission fees should not beconsidered simply as a way to ensure minimum funding fora World Heritage property: for endangered properties, orfor fragile properties, the existence of a significantentrance fee can be used to monitor visitor pressure on-site and acts as a deterrent in the development of masstourism within the protected area. In Sri Lanka, the budgetfor World Heritage is administered jointly by theArchaeological Survey Department (ASD) and by theCentral Cultural Fund (CCF). 75% of the income of theCCF, mainly from entrance fees and grants, is spent onheritage protection and related measures, while the ASDensures adequate funding of the site management authorities.

Entrance fees need to be developed as an alternative togovernment funding, since most of the funding receivedfrom local or national government authorities is intendedto pay for the management authority’s staff and premises.Still, for those properties, which have set up a tourism rev-

78

Resources and Partnerships for Conservation7

© U

NES

CO

/ J.

Oka

hash

i

Restoration work of the Prattapur shrine inSwayambunath, Kathmandu Valley, Nepal,financed by national and international funding

enue collection mechanism, the percentage of funds allo-cated directly to the local management authority for theconservation and restoration of the site is considered bysite managers as insufficient. In Kathmandu, for example,considering that the annual government budget for theseven Monument Zones was US$ 95,000 in 2002, anincrease in “the effectiveness of the tourist entry chargewould be desirable”, according to the local site manage-ment authority. (Periodic Report, Section II)

Other funding mechanisms include funds from the Army(in the case of certain natural heritage properties in Indiaand Nepal), funds from the private sector, grants anddonations, loans at national and international levels, fundsfrom business income and investment gains, or even bilat-eral or international assistance, etc. None of these mecha-nisms should be put aside a priori, and States Parties areencouraged to consult with the local stakeholders and sitemanagers to establish a financial plan to ensure sustain-able resources for the long-term conservation and promo-tion of World Heritage properties.

Regional Financial Co-operation for World Heritage?

Until very recently, regional financial co-operation forWorld Heritage was limited to bilateral agreementsbetween Japan, Australia and the rest of the Asia-Pacificregion. More and more, the need for regional revenue col-lection mechanisms is acknowledged. During a consulta-tion meeting with all Asian States Parties in March 2003 inParis, various solutions were suggested to increaseregional financial capacities for World Heritage conserva-tion. South-East Asian countries suggested using the inter-national assistance from the World Heritage Fund as seed

money to catalyse funds from regional co-operationorganisations, such as the Association of South-East AsianNations (ASEAN) or the Asian Development Bank (ADB).The representatives of China, the Republic of Korea andJapan proposed the establishment of a financial mecha-nism (trust fund or bond) to increase heritage resources inthe sub-region.

Although Asia-Pacific States Parties are in favour ofregional co-operation to enhance protection of WorldHeritage, very few concrete initiatives have been launchedas yet. The Asia-Pacific Focal Point, set up by the AustralianGovernment to facilitate exchanges between site man-agers and national heritage authorities in the region, couldconstitute a first step in the development of strengthenedfinancial bonds among the countries of Asia and thePacific. In the case of natural and mixed heritage, regionalinitiatives have been set up with the help of internationaldonors, such as UNDP-GEF or the United NationsFoundations (UNF).

Since regional funding opportunities are nevertheless lim-ited, most of the States Parties would like to focus on inter-national assistance as a priority. This assistance shouldaddress priorities on a national level first, but should notdiscard regional or sub-regional approaches for the financ-ing of heritage conservation. Significantly, the Republic ofKorea insisted on the fact that “there is a need tostrengthen international co-operation to prevent damageto cultural properties in other nations” (Periodic Report,Section I). After all, the World Heritage Convention isaimed at functioning as an instrument for international co-operation in the conservation, management and promo-tion of the heritage of outstanding universal value.

79

Resources and Partnerships for Conservation 7

Graph 1: International Assistance from the World Heritage Fund distributed to Asia-Pacific States Parties, 1978-2002

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

100,000

300,000

500,000

700,000

900,000

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

Afgha

nistan

Bang

lades

h

Bhut

an

Cambo

diaChin

a

DPR of

Kor

eaInd

ia

Indon

isia IranJap

an

Kazak

hstan

Kyrgyz

stanLa

os

Mala

ysia

Mald

ives

Mon

golia

Mya

nmarNep

al

Pakis

tan

Philip

pines

Repu

blic o

f Kor

ea

Sri La

nka

Tajik

istan

Thail

and

Turkm

enist

an

Uzbek

istan

Vietna

m

Austra

lie Fiji

New Ze

aland Niue

Papu

a new

Guin

ea

Vanu

ata

6 Oth

er Pa

cific

States

Amount approved in US$ Number of World Heritage propertiesNumber of World Heritage properties

International Assistance from the WorldHeritage Fund

Article 22 of the World Heritage Convention indicates that‘international assistance’ from the World Heritage Fundmay come in many different forms, including technicalstudies, the provision of experts, field training of staff, thesupply of equipment, as well as the provision of soft loans.The impact of such assistance for new States Parties to theConvention in the Asia-Pacific region has been fundamen-tal to the growing awareness and application of theConvention. Many Central Asian Republics and PacificIsland Countries in particular, which have had little formalexpertise in heritage designation and management in thepast, require continued World Heritage Fund support.International assistance for World Heritage nominationshas in this way helped to ‘set in motion’ the long-termlearning process of rethinking the management of her-itage in many different countries.

Faced with the challenge of monitoring and providingassistance to 754 properties across the world, the annualbudget of the World Heritage Fund (some US$ 4 million inthe past biennium) is scarcely sufficient. Financial alloca-tion for the task of safeguarding the 147 World Heritageproperties in the Asia-Pacific region is becoming increas-ingly stretched. International assistance is therefore at aturning point, as the number of requests has followed theincrease in the number of sites inscribed – itself a reflectionof the Convention’s success in fostering an awareness ofheritage. By dividing the number of requests for interna-tional assistance by the total number of properties, onlysome 16% of properties can potentially receive assistancein a given year, a figure that stood at 30% before 1992(Investing in World Heritage: past achievements, futureambitions – a guide to International Assistance, WorldHeritage Papers 2, 2002).

From 1978 to 1992, the Asia-Pacific region received 12%of the international assistance from the World HeritageFund, a share which shot up to 26% in 2001 linked to therise in the number of sites in the region, as well as to thenumber of new States Parties to the Convention, whichwere mainly from Central Asia and the Pacific IslandCountries. Of the total amount disbursed in Asia between1978-1992, a limited number of countries and sitesreceived a larger proportion of the international assistancefunds, which included China (approx. US$ 500,000),Nepal (approx. US$ 320,000), Pakistan and Sri Lanka(approx. US$ 150,000 each). The discrepancy between thenumber of inscribed properties of each State Party and thetotal international assistance received by it from the WorldHeritage Fund can be visualised in Graph 1, and is particu-larly patent for countries such as Afghanistan, Cambodia,Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines and Vietnam.

80


Graph 2: International Assistance from the World HeritageFund distributed per sub-region, 1978-2002

West Central Asia

South Asia

South East Asia

North East Asia

Pacific

25%

38%

22%

11%

4%

Graph 3: Type of International Assistance from the World Heritage Fund per sub-region, 1978-2002

0

800 000

700 000

600 000

500 000

400 000

300 000

200 000

100 000

Emergency Assistance

Amount in US$

Preparatory AssistancePreparatory Assistance Promotional AssistancePromotional Assistance Technical CooperationTechnical Cooperation TrainingTraining

West Central Asia South Asia South East Asia North East Asia Pacific

Between 1992-2001, as the number of different Asiancountries nominating new sites began to rise, the numberof countries receiving significant amounts of internationalassistance funds – including India, Indonesia, Laos, thePhilippines, Vietnam and Uzbekistan – has also increasedaccordingly. The share of international assistance forPacific Island Countries is likely to follow a similar trend.Between 1992-2001, about US$ 100,000 of internationalassistance was allocated to the Pacific, mainly for aware-ness-raising, capacity-building, and preparation ofTentative Lists and nominations. In the near future, anincreasing share of preparatory and technical assistancefor this Sub-Region may be expected. For example,Vanuatu has recently been granted preparatory assistancefor further developments of its national cultural heritageinventory prior to preparation of its Tentative List.

Graph 2 shows the distribution of international assistancefunds over the five sub-regions in the past 25 years. SouthAsia is the first beneficiary of international assistance from theWorld Heritage Fund in the Asia-Pacific region, with threeStates Parties - India, Nepal and Pakistan – totalling almostUS$ 2 million, and 38% of the total amount of internationalassistance received by the region. This focus on South Asiaoriginates not only from the strong financial needs in the sub-region, but also from the fact that most South Asian proper-ties were inscribed before 1992, having thus benefited fromless competition in the allocation of resources from the Fund.With 25% and 22%, South-East Asia and North-East Asia arefar behind, although in constant progression, while CentralAsia and the Pacific, with respectively 11% and 4%, have notyet had the opportunity, due to their recent ratification of theConvention, to request extensive international assistancefrom the World Heritage Fund.

Between 1999 and 2001, two studies of internationalassistance under the World Heritage Fund were con-ducted, for the first time giving a clearer picture of recur-rent requests from certain sites and States Parties. Thisinformation has enabled a more proactive and strategicapproach to be developed for the Asia-Pacific region. Akey output of the Periodic Reporting exercise has been aclearer and more concrete picture of the challenges facingconservation in Asia and the Pacific. As a result, the WorldHeritage Committee will thus be in a stronger strategicposition to re-adjust and allocate international assistancein the future (see graph 3 for the distribution of interna-tional assistance funds by type of request).

New Partnerships for Conservation

Faced with the steady increase in urgent demands for inter-national assistance from the World Heritage Fund, the primerole of the Fund is gradually transforming itself into a cat-alytic one of providing ‘seed money’ to attract partnershipswith other institutions, be they local, provincial, national orinternational. At the international level, a milestone successwas reached in the partnership established at the end of2002 between the United Nations Foundation (UNF),

UNESCO and Conservation International (CI) in targetingfunds to protect the outstanding biodiversity value of WorldHeritage properties listed under natural criterion iv. Between1998 and 2004, the UNF/UNESCO partnership mobilisednearly US$ 32 million for the conservation of World Heritagesites containing outstanding levels of biodiversity, of whichUS$ 697,950 has directly benefited the Asia-Pacific Region.

The World Heritage PACT

Today more than ever, we need to help restore thecapacity of developing countries to protect their heritage and to respond to emergency situations. Weneed to have the tools and the necessary resources totake decisive action to identify areas of high conserva-tion value, protect heritage at risk and build the capac-ity of countries around the world to make heritageconservation an integral part of the future sustainablelivelihoods of local communities. This naturally impliesstrengthened cooperation, not only between govern-ments but also with the private sector.

Through the World Heritage PACT, launched at the endof 2002, UNESCO is endeavouring to encourage,develop and strengthen cooperative efforts with the private sector in order to create new resources andalliances for the long-term safeguarding and conserva-tion of World Heritage.

ObjectivesWorld Heritage PACT is a solutions oriented approach toconserving World Heritage in a sustainable mannerinvolving a network of companies, foundations, conser-vation and research institutions, and media organisa-tions interested in assisting in the implementation of theWorld Heritage Convention.

Its objectives are:• To raise awareness about World Heritage; and • To mobilise sustainable resources for the long-term

conservation of World Heritage, addressing mutuallyagreed issues and problems identified as priorities bythe World Heritage Committee.

Key principlesRecognising that partnerships should be commonundertakings between partners with mutual respect inpursuit of common goals, the World Heritage PACToperates around the following key principles: • Common purpose;• Transparency;• Bestowing no unfair advantages upon any partner;• Mutual benefit and mutual respect;• Accountability;• Respect for the modalities, aims and principles of the

United Nations;• Striving for balanced representation of relevant part-

ners from developed and Developing countries andcountries with economies in transition;

• Maintaining the independence and neutrality of theUnited Nations system.

81


Biodiversity Partnerships for World Heritage Conservation

ObjectivesThe UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the United Nations Foundation (UNF) are the main partners of these Biodiversitypartnerships. The large-scale project, extending over a five-year initial period of time (2001-2005), aims to build UNESCO,UNF, and third-party donor arrangements to multiply each UNF-dollar for World Heritage conservation by an equivalent or alarger amount.

Following the Trieste Workshop in November 2002, Fauna and Flora International (FFI) committed to setting up a RapidResponse Facility for mitigating threats to World Natural Heritage. A three-way partnership has also been set up withConservation International (CI) in which CI will match dollar for dollar with UNF for projects for long-term biodiversity conser-vation, up to £7.5 million over three years.

Thematic Programmes and ProjectsUnder this general capacity-strengthening project, a wide range of thematic programmes and projects have been launched.Here are a few examples, which directly benefit World Natural and Mixed Heritage properties in the Asia-Pacific region.

Filling critical gaps and Promoting Innovative Approaches to New World Heritage Area Nominations

Objectives: • Identify gaps in World Heritage coverage, and opportunities for cluster

and transboundary nominations in tropical coastal, marine and smallislands, and in East and South-East Asian karsts;

• Design at least one cluster and one transboundary World Heritage nomi-nation in ASEAN tropical forests.

1. Following the World Heritage Marine Biodiversity workshop held inHanoi, (Vietnam, February 2002), a list of potential cluster and trans-boundary nominations was prepared for the Pacific and for South-EastAsia. Discussions are underway to propose Milne Bay (Papua NewGuinea) for its rich biodiversity, and Solomon Islands for its largest doublebarrier reef in the world, as potential serial nominations for the Pacific.

2. Following the Gunung Mulu Sub-regional Dialogue on Karst and Caves(Malaysia, May 2001), a list of potential South-East Asian karst sites wasidentified. Thanks to support from UNF, Phong Nha Ke Bang NationalPark (Vietnam) was declared World Heritage in July 2003.

3. The same year, the World Heritage Committee encouraged Vietnam and Laos to explore possibilities of a transbound-ary nomination including the newly inscribed Vietnamese sites and protected areas in Central Laos, such as theKhammouane limestones. Consultations have been initiated by the Centre between the two States Parties, IUCN andthe World Bank, and an on-site meeting is planned in Spring 2004.

4. For the first time in South-East Asia, a cluster nomination has been submitted to the Centre in 2003. The SumatranRainforest Parks includes three Malaysian national parks. The cluster nomination is currently being evaluated by IUCN.

5. The World Heritage Centre received the first transboundary nomination in the sub-region, between Indonesia andMalaysia, in early 2004. The Sumatran and Borneo tropical forests are one of the major orang utan habitats in Asia.

6. The tropical forests initiatives in South-East Asia have also been supported by the World Heritage Forest NetworkImplementation Project launched in 2002.

82


Location: worldwideAmount: US$ 599,550 (UNF)Partners: UNESCO, WHC, IUCN, NOAADuration: 2000-2003

© U

NES

CO

Professionalising Protected Area Management for the 21st CenturyA World Heritage Biodiversity Programme for India (WHBPI)

Objectives: • Build pride for India’s unique biodiversity and political and public sup-

port for law enforcement and other approaches to conserve protectedareas;

• Professionalise protected area management by creating partnershipsbetween Government, NGOs, the private sector, local communities andother stakeholders;

• Demonstrate benefits of effective protected area management to localcommunities and its potential to improve their livelihoods;

• Improve habitat connectivity and integrity of inscribed and potentialWorld Heritage sites.

1. The first phase of the project consisted in the creation of a Project Co-ordinating Committee (PCC). The PCC was in charge of preparing thefirst draft of the WHBPI. However, the consultative process took longerthan expected.

2. World Heritage properties concerned by the WHBPI are Keoladeo, Kaziranga, Manas and Nanda Devi National Parks.Biodiversity hotspots in Western Ghats and the Eastern Himalayas have also been identified as potential cluster WorldHeritage nominations. After extensive consultations with all stakeholders involved, the final version of the WHBPI iscurrently under preparation.

3. UNF and UNESCO are now looking for new partners for the execution of the WHBPI. Some US-India Foundations areseen as potential sources for matching UNF grants. The dialogue with these potential donors is underway.

The World Heritage Marine Programme

Objectives: • contribute to the conservation of the most important marine areas in the

world through their nomination as World Heritage sites;• increase awareness of the World Heritage Convention as a unique legal

tool for achieving conservation of marine and coastal ecosystems, and forenhancing international co-operation for such work;

• establish pilot projects for serial and transboundary nominations amongcountries sharing important marine areas;

• contribute to improving effectiveness and management of existingmarine World Heritage sites;

• establish a more balanced and representative World Heritage List.

1. The UNESCO/IUCN/UNF Hanoi 2002 workshop for Marine Biodiversityidentified 118 tropical, marine, coastal and small island areas with high biological diversity for potential inscription of the World Heritage List. 48 of these areas are located in the Asia-Pacific region: 25 in South-East Asia, and 23 inthe Pacific.

2. A pilot project for serial and transboundary nominations has been initiated for the Central Pacific Islands and Atolls,including Kiribati, Cook Islands, French Polynesia, and US areas.

3. UNESCO World Heritage Centre Missions have been undertaken or are planned to assess the possibility of furthermarine transboundary nominations in the Pacific sub-region.

83


© U

NES

CO

© U

NES

CO

Location: inscribed and potential World Heritage sites in IndiaAmount: US$ 50,400 (UNF)Partners: UNESCO, WHC, Government of India, Ministry of Environment andForest (MOEF), WII, ATREE, Bangalore…Duration: 2001-2003

Location: marine sites worldwideAmount: US$ 400,000 (UNF,Governments of Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, WHC)Partners: IUCN, WCPA Marine, NOAADuration: 2000-2004

As part of the ‘World Heritage Partnership Initiative’ (WHPACT) to increase the network of non governmental andcorporate sector contributors to World Heritage conserva-tion, (strictly speaking, WH PACT is aimed at non govern-mental funding sources) it is expected that other financingpartnership channels will be targeted to address culturalheritage needs on a regional basis – as, for example,through the cultural and environmental committee of theAssociation of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and theSouth Asian Association for Regional Co-operation(SAARC). In addition, bi and multi-lateral cooperationagreements with the World Heritage Centre have beensigned with the governments of France, Italy, theNetherlands, and Spain assisting many countries in Asiaand the Pacific, and with intergovernmental institutions.

The contribution of France has been devoted to decen-tralised co-operation projects within the framework oflarger international assistance programmes, such as theAsia Urbs programme of the European Union. LuangPrabang in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and theDarjeeling Himalayan Railway in India have benefited orare benefiting greatly from this decentralised multidonorapproach. Italy has concentrated its contribution onendangered cultural heritage, especially in Afghanistanand Central Asia. The Netherlands are currently funding alarge-scale project to inscribe the Chinese part of the SilkRoad on the World Heritage List as a serial nomination, inaccordance with the recommendations of various regionalGlobal Strategy meetings.

The government of Japan has provided some US$ 40 mil-lion since 1989 for the benefit of cultural World Heritage,including US$ 334,800 for the development of a WorldHeritage monitoring system in Asia, a contribution thathas been instrumental in the consultations involved inpreparing this Periodic Report. To enhance the implemen-tation of the Convention in Asia and the Pacific, Australiasigned a Memorandum of Understanding with the WorldHeritage Centre in 2002, and New Zealand signed anArrangement with the World Heritage Centre in 2003.

Across Asia, access to a steady supply of extrabudgetaryfunds is essential for the effective management of WorldHeritage properties. All Pacific Island Countries need fundsto develop inventories, Tentative Lists and nominations. Aspointed out by the IUCN Task Force on Financing ProtectedAreas in 2000, ensuring sustainable sources of revenue hasbecome a ‘core business’ for protected area and culturalheritage site managers. In order to raise the baseline anddampen funding oscillations, no single source of financingis likely to suffice on a long-term reliable basis. In additionto the efforts already placed on developing tourism,numerous alternative financing tools are currently beingtested to supplement and diversify revenue sources.

To address the long-term financial viability of natural andlandscape World Heritage properties covering large areas(which will include archaeological and mixed sites), varioustools are being discussed to ensure that the scientific, eco-

nomic and aesthetic contribution of these protected areasare fully valued. Some of these instruments are now well-proven, including tourism user fees; debt-for-nature swaps;conservation trust funds; private enterprise partnerships;and carbon offset & investment projects. Others are in theearly stages of development such as ‘ecosystem services’payment schemes including water use fees; resourceextraction fees from logging, mining and oil/gas explo-ration dedicated for conservation; bio-prospecting royal-ties; green bonds and environmental investment funds. Inthe cultural sphere, in addition to entrance fees, tourismtaxes, food-for-work schemes in practice for many years,funds for infrastructure, agricultural subsidies, social hous-ing and renewal of industrial zones are being increasinglymobilised for conservation. But the application of suchschemes remains limited in much of Asia and the Pacific,caught between poverty and the quest for rapid growth.

Asia-Pacific Focal Point (APFP)

In 1996, Australia hosted the first meeting for Asia-Pacific World Heritage managers, which recommendedthe establishment of a regional network (World HeritageManager’s workshop, April 1996, Ravenshoe, NorthQueensland). Given Australia’s record and experience inimplementing the World Heritage Convention, it wasasked to act as the focal point for the network. APFP isoperated by the World Heritage Unit, Department of theEnvironment and Heritage, Canberra and aims to drawon the skills of Australia’s Commonwealth and Statemanagement agencies, scientific experts, and the WorldHeritage Centre, Advisory Bodies, the academic commu-nity and World Heritage managers in the region.

The objectives of APFP are to facilitate the adoption ofthe Convention and assist States Parties in implement-ing the World Heritage Convention. In doing so, theFocal Point will co-odinate its work with other activitiesseeking to achieve similar objectives. The Focal Point willprovide a forum for state party Ministers to exchangeviews; disseminate information among state party net-work partners on World Heritage activities, techniquesand standards; establish and develop intra-regionalworking relationships with, for example, the UNESCOApia Office, the South Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme (SPREP) and activities undertaken by otherstates and organisations; encourage ratification of theWorld Heritage Convention specially in the Pacific; assistwith systematic monitoring and Periodic Reporting; anddevelop a World Heritage management training pro-gramme, aimed at property managers.

APFP will support complementary activities funded byUNESCO, the World Bank and other bodies in theregion and will seek to maximize funding opportunitiesavailable from those bodies for projects in the region.

For more information, go towww.heritage.gov.au/apfp/

84


Conclusions

85

8

© Earth Observatory, NASA

86

Conclusions8

In 2000, the 39 States Parties concerned with the first Periodic Reporting exercise for the Asia-Pacificregion appointed national focal points in their country, for both cultural and natural heritage properties. Following these appointments, theUNESCO World Heritage Centre set up a strong par-ticipatory approach in the preparation and analysisof the Periodic Reports, involving States Parties, theAdvisory Bodies, UNESCO Field Offices, and otherdivisions at UNESCO. As a result, almost 4,000 pagesof national and site-specific Periodic Reports werereceived, synthesised and analysed by the WorldHeritage Centre and its partners.

Benefits and Lessons Learnt

The benefits and the lessons learnt from this exercise, thefirst of its kind for the Asia-Pacific region, are numerous. Athird of the site managers responding to the Section IIquestionnaire have found that the Periodic Reporting exer-cise has been a unique incentive to strengthen forward-planning activities, and that the exercise was instrumentalin providing a global vision of a property’s mid to long-term evolution. For certain site managers, it was the firsttime such an overall exercise was asked of them, thus pro-viding a precious opportunity to collect and store preciousinformation on the “life” of the property. Stronger knowl-edge of the World Heritage Convention, its guidelines andits reporting mechanisms was another result that was con-sidered as highly positive by a certain number of nationalauthorities and site managers all around the region, espe-cially in South East and Central Asia.

Issues to be Addressed

The two World Heritage Regional Programmes (seeAnnexes 3 and 4) that were adopted by the WorldHeritage Committee at its 27th session in 2003 take stockof these positive results, while concentrating mainly on theissues identified through the Periodic Reporting exercise bythe World Heritage Centre in close consultation with theStates Parties. The lack of international exchange and / orregional co-operation was a major preoccupation of theAsian States Parties invited to the UNESCO RegionalConsultation Meeting of March 2003.

Another issue relates to the need to prepare or revise sitemanagement plans, monitoring systems, and more gener-ally, regular reporting mechanisms on the state of conser-vation of World Heritage properties. The lack of protectivezoning and adequate legislation has been repeatedlyacknowledged in the national Periodic Reports and by theexperts involved in their analysis.

These and other issues are described in the Regional andSub-regional Recommendations annexed to this publica-tion (see Annex 5). States Parties in the Asia-Pacific regionhave also suggested activities and actions to be under-

taken to follow-up on the results of the first PeriodicReporting exercise. These recommendations have beentaken into account by the World Heritage Centre, whichhas set up a detailed agenda for the implementation offollow-up activities.

Comments and Recommendations on thePeriodic Reporting Exercise by IUCN

IUCN – The World Conservation Union, as technicaladvisor to the World Heritage Committee on naturalheritage, was pleased to take part in the regional meet-ings for the Periodic Reporting process of the Asia-Pacific region and to assist certain States Parties in thepreparation of their reports. It is essential now to effec-tively use the knowledge gained from this process toenhance the conservation and protection of WorldHeritage in the region.

IUCN would like to highlight some of the lessons learntfrom this process and provide a number of recommen-dations for improving the process and its outputs in thefuture: • Increased training and capacity development in State

Party agencies is necessary to assist them in carryingout such an exercise;

• The absence of credible monitoring and assessmentmechanisms and the use of objective indicators forthis purpose were clearly evident in many cases. Theperiodic reporting process has underscored the imper-ative need to have monitoring frameworks in placeand for them to be used regularly for evaluating theresults of management and conservation effort.

• Individual country reports should constitute thebenchmark information against which the annualreporting on the state of conservation is carried out infuture years. Conversely, previous state of conserva-tion reports should feed into the periodic reportingprocess in a much more structured manner, thusestablishing a synergistic relationship between thesedifferent but closely allied processes.

• Funding is required to ensure that the relevant naturalWorld Heritage site datasheets, including maps, areupdated by the UNEP-WCMC based on the new infor-mation provided.

• The Periodic Reporting process could include anassessment of how the World Heritage sites have con-tributed, both individually and collectively, to thesocio-economic development of the area, country andregion of occurrence, in order to establish the “eco-nomic” benefits of World Heritage listing of sites.

• The Periodic Reporting exercise ought to be used for“promotion” of the World Heritage Convention.Hence, it should allow for a broader range of stake-holders to be involved - community representatives,civil society organisations, private sector, etc.

87

Conclusions 8

In the Future

The Asia-Pacific Unit of the World Heritage Centre willorganise a series of sub-regional workshops betweenOctober 2004 and Spring 2005 to identify, together with the national authorities and site managers of each sub-region, an ‘Action Plan’ for the implementation of theregional World Heritage programmes. Following this firstphase of follow-up action, more concrete activities will beset up in collaboration with the States Parties, the AdvisoryBodies, and relevant international NGOs. Activities caninvolve research, training, institutional capacity-building orexchange of expertise through field work or meetings.

Comments and Recommendations on thePeriodic Reporting Exercise by ICCROM

ICCROM participated in the first stage of the regionalPeriodic Reporting exercise for Asia-Pacific, sending rep-resentatives to two of the orientation workshops held inthe Republic of Korea and in Australia (Blue Mountains).ICCROM was not invited to participate in the analysis ofState Party reports and cannot offer comments on thispart of the exercise. ICCROM would nevertheless wel-come the opportunity to contribute its recommenda-tions for future Periodic Reporting in the Asia-Pacificregion.

1. Based on its experiences with Periodic Reporting inLatin America, ICCROM believes that the most effectiveway to involve Advisory Bodies is through appointmentof a permanent liaison or contact person, who can bepresent at all meetings, and follow the process frombeginning to end.

2. The effectiveness of the results obtained has much todo with the understanding of those involved, of theexpectations to be met in filling out questionnaires.Hence, a significant investment in advance training isrecommended. Based on the variable responsesobtained from the questionnaires, ICCROM believes thatthe training phase should be significantly increased inthe next Periodic Reporting cycle. ICCROM believes thatthe best model would be a number of sub-regionaltraining activities, targeted towards those who can pro-vide such training in national settings.

3. Training in Periodic Reporting must be rooted intraining to improve monitoring of World Heritage prop-erties in the centre of site management. The quality ofthe information provided in the Periodic Reports in theend reflects the effectiveness of the self-monitoring sys-tems set up with properties (accuracy and scope ofbaseline data, utility of significance statement).

4. The communication of the findings of the RegionalSynthesis Report to the World Heritage Committee at its 27th session in 2003 (involving presentations by StatesParties) was a very effective way to present a picture ofthe region, and would be worth emulating in laterregional presentations.

5. It is important to involve Advisory Bodies not just inthe preparatory meetings for a regional PeriodicReporting exercise, but throughout the synthesis of thedata, to ensure both continuity in treatment of keyissues, and also to follow through the earlier recom-mendations in analysis.

6. The Periodic Reporting process for Asia-Pacific hasinspired in-depth analysis of many subjects pertinent toimproving the state of conservation of World Heritageproperties in the Asia- Pacific region. Chapter 2 of thispublication provides an excellent and worthwhile analy-sis of critical subjects, such as the preparation ofStatements of Significance. The context of this report isrelevant to the conservation of World Heritage proper-ties in all regions. Its findings should be shared widelyand its recommendations to organise training in thisarea be taken very seriously by the Advisory Bodies andthe World Heritage Committee.

7. As with other World Heritage processes touchingspecific regions (such as the Global Strategy), theregional and sub-regional workshops organised forPeriodic Reporting purposes offer opportunities to dealwith the specific objectives of Periodic Reporting, butalso many other facets of the World Heritage system.The potential of these workshops to serve complemen-tary purposes without additional cost should be recog-nised in planning, so as to ensure maximum advantageis taken of those opportunities to serve overall promo-tional, training, and information sharing needs concern-ing World Heritage.

Parallel to the follow-up activities directly relating to theimplementation of the two World Heritage programmes,the UNESCO World Heritage Centre is proceeding with thedissemination of the information collected during and as aconsequence of the Periodic Reporting exercise. StatesParties will soon be able to view the national PeriodicReports, together with good models of managementplans, visitor management plans, monitoring indicators,international assistance requests, as well as best practicecases around the Asia-Pacific region, on the website of theCentre. Indeed, many Asia-Pacific States Parties haveexpressed the need for feedback on the Periodic Reportingexercise, not only as regards the results, but also themethodological aspects and the shortcomings of thePeriodic Reporting exercise as a whole.

This publication is the first step of a long process toward enhanced information sharing in the region.Strengthening regional co-operation mechanisms, as hasbeen suggested by North-East Asian States Parties duringa regional consultation meeting, could be another way toexchange and add value to the work of all the dedicatedsite managers and national agencies and departmentsactively involved in the conservation and promotion ofWorld Heritage properties. The Asia-Pacific States Partiesare thus encouraged to explore alternative ways of sharinginformation, using the World Heritage Fund and Centre asa catalyst for the benefit of World Heritage in the regionand in other regions.

88

Conclusions8

Annex 1:List of Asia-Pacific World Heritage Properties

inscribed on the World Heritage List before or in 1994

Annex 2:Basic Facts about Asia-Pacific States

Annex 3:“ActionAsia 2003-2009” Programme

Annex 4:“World Heritage – Pacific 2009” Programme

Annex 5:Sub-regional and Regional Recommendations

on the Asia-Pacific Periodic Reporting Exercise

Annex 6:List of acronyms

89

Annexes

90

Annex 1

AUSTRALIA

1981, Kakadu National Park 1987, N ii, iii, iv1992 C i, vi

1981 Great Barrier ReefN i, ii, iii, iv

1981 Willandra Lakes RegionN iC iii

1982, Tasmanian Wilderness1989 N i, ii, iii, iv

C iii, iv, vi

1982 Lord Howe Island GroupN iii, iv

1986, Central Eastern Rainforest Reserves1994 N i, ii, iv

1987, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park1994 N ii, iii

C v, vi

1988 Wet Tropics of QueenslandN i, ii, iii, iv

1991 Shark Bay, Western AustraliaN i, ii, iii, iv

1992 Fraser IslandN ii, iii

1994 Australian Fossil Mammal Sites(Riversleigh/ Naracoorte)N i, ii

BANGLADESH

1985 Historic Mosque City of BagerhatC iv

1985 Ruins of the Buddhist Vihara at PaharpurC i, ii, vi

CAMBODIA

1992 AngkorC i, ii, iii, iv

CHINA

1987 The Great Wall C i, ii, iii, iv, vi

1987 Mount TaishanN iiiC Ii ii, iii, iv, v, vi

1987 Imperial Palace of the Ming andQing DynastiesC iii, iv

1987 Mogao CavesC i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi

1987 Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor |C i iii, iv, vi

1987 Peking Man Site at ZhoukoudianC iii, vi

1990 Mount HuangshanN iii, ivC ii

1992 Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and HistoricInterest AreaN iii

1992 Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest AreaN iii

1992 Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest AreaN iii

1994 Mountain Resort and its OutlyingTemples, ChengdeC ii, iv

1994 Temple of Confucius, Cemetery of Confucius, and Kong Family Mansion in QufuC i, v, vi

List of Asia-Pacific World Heritage Properties inscribed on the World Heritage List before or in 1994

N.B. A property in bold indicates a property inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

1994 Ancient Building Complex in the Wudang MountainsC i, ii, vi

1994, Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa2000, C i, iv, vi2001

INDIA

1983 Ajanta CavesC i, ii, iii, vi

1983 Ellora CavesC i, iii, vi

1983 Agra FortC iii

1983 Taj MahalC i

1984 Sun Temple, KonarakC i, iii, vi

1985 Group of Monuments at MahabalipuramC i, ii, iii, iv, vi

1985 Kaziranga National ParkN ii, iv

1985 Manas Wildlife SanctuaryN N ii, iii, iv

1985 Keoladeo National ParkN iv

1986 Churches and Convents of GoaC ii, v, vi

1986 Group of Monuments at KhajurahoC i, iii

1986 Group of Monuments at HampiC I, iii, iv

1986 Fatehpur SikriC ii, iii, iv

1987 Group of Monuments at PattadakalC iii, iv

1987 Elephanta CavesC I, iii

1987 Brihadisvara Temple, ThanjavurC ii, iii

1987 Sundarbans National ParkN ii, iv

1988 Nanda Devi National ParkN iii, iv

1989 Buddhist Monastery at SanchiC I ii, iii, iv, vi

1993 Humayun's TombC ii, iv

1993 Qutb Minar and its Monuments, DelhiC iv

INDONESIA

1991 Komodo National Park N iii, iv

1991 Ujung Kulon National ParkN iii, iv

1991 Borobudur Temple compoundC i, ii, vi

1991 Prambanan Temple compoundC i, iv

IRAN

1979 Persepolis C i, iii, vi

1979 Tchoga Zanbil C iii, iv

1979 Meidan Emam, EsfahanC I, v, vi

JAPAN

1993 Himeji-joC i, iv

1993 Buddhist Monuments in the Horyuji AreaC i, ii, iv, vi

1993 YakushimaN ii, iii

1993 Shirakami-SanchiN ii

1994 Historic Monuments of Ancient KyotoC ii, iv

91

Annex 1

92

Annex 1

NEPAL

1979 Sagarmantha National ParkN iii

1979 Kathmandu ValleyC iii, iv, vi

1984 Royal Chitwan ParkN ii, iii, iv

NEW ZEALAND

1990 Tai Wahipounamu – South West New ZealandN i, ii, iii, iv

1990, Tongariro National Park1993 N ii, iii

C vi

PAKISTAN

1980 Archaeological Ruins at Moenjodaro C ii, iii

1980 Buddhist Ruins at Takht-i-Bahi and Neighboring City Remains at Sahr-i-BahlolC iv

1980 TaxilaC iii, vi

1981 Fort and Shalamar Gardens in LahoreC i, ii, iii

1981 Historic Monuments of ThattaC iii

PHILIPPINES

1993 Baroque Churches of the Philippines C ii, iv

1993 Tubbataha Reef Marine ParkN ii, iii, iv

SRI LANKA

1982 Sacred City of Anuradhapura C ii, iii, vi

1982 Ancient City of PolonnaruwaC i, iii, vi

1982 Ancient City of SigiriyaC ii, iii, iv

1988 Sinharaja Forest Reserve N ii, iv

1988 Sacred City of KandyC iv, vi

1988 Old Town of Galle and its FortificationsC iv

1991 Golden Temple of DambullaC i, vi

THAILAND

1991 Thungyai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries N ii, iii, iv

1991 Historic Town of Sukhothai and Associated Historic TownsC i, iii

1991 Historic City of Ayutthaya and Associated Historic TownsC iii

1992 Ban Chiang Archaeological SiteC iii

UZBEKISTAN

1990 Itchan KalaC iii, iv, i

1993 Historic Centre of BukharaC ii, iv, vi

VIETNAM

1993 Complex of Hue MonumentsC iii, iv

1994, Ha Long Bay2000 N i, iii

93

Annex 2

Basic Facts about Asia-Pacific States

West-Central Asia

Afghanistan647,500 km2

27,755,775 inhab.Infant mortality: 144.76Adult literacy: 36%GDP per cap. $800Pop. below pov. line: ---

Iran1,648,000 km2

66,622,704 inhab.Infant mortality: 28.07Adult literacy: 72.1%GDP per cap. $6,400Pop. below pov. line: 53%

Kazakhstan2,717,300 km2


Kyrgyzstan198,500 km2

4,822,166 inhab.Infant mortality: 75.92Adult literacy: 97%GDP per cap. $2,800Pop. below pov. line: 55%

Tajikistan143,100 km2


Turkmenistan448,100 km2

4,688,963 inhab.Infant mortality: 73.21Adult literacy: 98%GDP per cap. $4,700Pop. below pov. line: 34.4%

Uzbekistan447,400 km2


North-East Asia

China9,596,960 km2

1,284,303,705 inhab.Infant mortality: 27.25Adult literacy: 81.5%GDP per cap. $4,300Pop. below pov. line: 10%

DPR Korea120,540 km2

22,224,195 inhab.Infant mortality: 22.8Adult literacy: 99%GDP per cap. $1,000Pop. below pov. line: ---

Japan377,835 km2


Mongolia1,560,000 km2


Republic of Korea 98,480 km2


© E

arth

Ob

serv

ato

ry,

NA

SA©

Ear

th O

bse

rvat

ory

, N

ASA

94

Annex 2

South Asia

Bangladesh144,000 km2

133,376,684 inhab.Infant mortality: 68.05Adult literacy: 56%GDP per cap. $1,750Pop. below pov. line: 35.6%

Bhutan 47,000 km2

2,094,176 inhab.Infant mortality: 106.79Adult literacy: 42.2%GDP per cap. $1,200Pop. below pov. line: ---

India3,787,590 km2

1,045,845,226 inhab.Infant mortality: 61.47Adult literacy: 52%GDP per cap. $2,500Pop. below pov. line: 25%

Maldives330 km2

320,165 inhab.Infant mortality: 61.93Adult literacy: 93.2%GDP per cap. $3,870Pop. below pov. line: ---

Nepal 140,800 km2


Pakistan803,940 km2


Sri Lanka65,610 km2


South-East Asia

Cambodia181,040 km2

12,775,324 inhab.Infant mortality: 64Adult literacy: 35%GDP per cap. $1,500Pop. below pov. line: 36%

Indonesia 1,919,440 km2


Laos236,800 km2


Malaysia329,750 km2

22,662,365 inhab.Infant mortality: 19.66Adult literacy: 83.5%GDP per cap. $9,000Pop. below pov. line: -%

Myanmar678,500 km2


Philippines 300,000 km2


Thailand514,000 km2

62,354,402 inhab.Infant mortality: 29.5Adult literacy: 93.8%GDP per cap. $6,600Pop. below pov. line: 12.5%

Vietnam 329,560 km2


Non States Parties to theWorld Heritage Convention:

Brunei5,770 km2

350,898 inhab.Infant mortality: 13.95Adult literacy: 88.2%GDP per cap. $18,000Pop. below pov. Line

East Timor 15,007 km2

952,618 inhab.Infant mortality: 51.99Adult literacy: 48%GDP per cap. $500Pop. below pov. line: 42%

Singapore 692.7 km2

4,452,732 inhab.Infant mortality: 3.6Adult literacy: 93.5%GDP per cap. $24,700Pop. below pov. line: ---

© E

arth

Ob

serv

ato

ry,

NA

SA©

Ear

th O

bse

rvat

ory

, N

ASA

95

Annex 2

Pacific

Australia7,686,850 km2


Fiji18,270 km2

856,346 inhab.Infant mortality: 13.72Adult literacy: 92.5%GDP per cap. $5,200Pop. below pov. line: 26%

Kiribati811 km2

96,335 inhab.Infant mortality: 52.63Adult literacy: n/aGDP per cap. $840Pop. below pov. line: n/a

Marshall Islands181.3 km2

73,630 inhab.Infant mortality: 38.68Adult literacy: 93.7%GDP per cap. $1,600Pop. below pov. line: n/a

Micronesia702 km2

135,869 inhab.Infant mortality: n/aAdult literacy: 89%GDP per cap. $2,000Pop. below pov. line: n/a

Niue260 km2

2,134 inhab.Infant mortality: n/aAdult literacy: 95%GDP per cap. $3,600Pop. below pov. line: n/a

New Zealand268,680 km2

3,908,037 inhab.Infant mortality: 6.18Adult literacy: 99%GDP per cap. $19,500Pop. below pov. line: n/a

Palau458 km2

19,409 inhab.Infant mortality: 16.21Adult literacy: 92%GDP per cap. $9,000Pop. below pov. line: n/a

Papua New Guinea462,840 km2


Samoa2,944 km2


Solomon Islands28,450 km2

494,786 inhab.Infant mortality: 23.68Adult literacy: n/aGDP per cap. $1,700Pop. below pov. line: n/a

Vanuatu12,200 km2


Associated Territories:• Cook Islands (New Zealand)• French Polynesia (France)• New Caledonia (France)• Tokelau (New Zealand)• Henderson Island (UK)

Non States Parties to theWorld Heritage Convention:- Nauru- Tonga* - Tuvalu

* joined in 2004

Source: World Bank Data 2002

© E

arth

Ob

serv

ato

ry,

NA

SA

96

Annex 3

Methodology

1.1 Asian States Parties with support from the World Heritage Committee and the WorldHeritage Centre, as well as other partners, should address the lack of national inven-tories that concern many Asian States Parties, as well as the fact that existing inven-tories are often biased towards monumental and archaeological sites through:1.1.1 Reviewing national inventories,1.1.2 Elaborating or harmonising Tentative Lists based upon national inventories and

analysis,1.1.3 Preparing nomination dossiers, especially of non or under-represented

heritage, with particular focus on:• West Central Asian heritage,• modern and industrial heritage,• proto-historic heritage,• vernacular architectural heritage;

1.2 UNESCO World Heritage Centre shall provide Asian States Parties with:1.2.1 Examples of the definitions of heritage and national inventory formats gath-

ered from various countries,1.2.2 Good examples of Tentative Lists and statements of significance;

1.3 UNESCO and the Advisory Bodies were requested by the Asian States Parties to sub-mit reports by 2005 on action taken to identify under-represented categories of nat-ural and mixed World Heritage sites in the Asian region, particularly in Central Asia.

2.1 In order to foster heritage identification and protection, Asian States Parties shouldconsolidate, review, harmonise and update national legislation through: 2.1.1 Analyzing existing legal provisions for World Heritage or Tentative List proper-

ties, including the development of regulations (e.g. town and planning acts) to identify omissions and overlaps in jurisdiction and to strengthen legal provisions,

2.1.2 Reviewing core and buffer / support zones of World Heritage propertiesinscribed on the World Heritage List in or before 1994 and ensure that protec-tive zones are legally demarcated, supported by adequate legal regulationswhich are effectively implemented,

2.1.3 Reviewing the management mechanisms at World Heritage propertiesinscribed in or before 1994, and if necessary, elaborating management planswith systematic monitoring, appropriate development control and stakeholderparticipation;

2.2 The UNESCO World Heritage Centre should establish an on-line database for col-lecting national heritage legislation in the Asian Region concerning World Heritage.

Objectives

1. Improve the representativity of Asian natural and cultural heritageon the World Heritage List

2. Strengthen legal mecha-nisms to adequately protectthe World Heritage values ofWorld Heritage List orTentative List properties

“ActionAsia 2003-2009” Programme

This new regional ActionAsia 2003-2009 Programme is proposed by the World Heritage Centre’s Asia Region Unitin direct response to the conclusions and prioritised action plan elaborated by 27 Asian States Parties to theWorld Heritage Convention through the 2003 Asian Regional Periodic Reporting exercise. The programme aimsto assist the Asian States Parties at sub-regional and regional levels in carrying out specific actions to strengthenthe application of the World Heritage Convention and to enhance the conservation process at Asian WH prop-erties, especially those inscribed on the WH List until 1994.

3.1 Improve co-operation between different stakeholders with an emphasis on theestablishment of national GIS systems for inventorying and mapping cultural her-itage resources, together with demographic, infrastructural information into datalayers for joint and shared information management and utilization by the relevantplanning authorities;

3.2 Establish effective monitoring indicators;

3.3 Assess cultural impact of proposed development activities in co-operation with thedonor agencies with UNESCO’s active participation;

3.4 Raise awareness of the development agencies on the impact of heritage conserva-tion on development and identify innovative mechanisms for the Asian region, suchas trust funds and partnerships with a broad range of stakeholders, to achieve sus-tainable financial management of World Heritage properties, especially those on theList of World Heritage in Danger. The World Heritage Centre will submit a report tothe Committee on these innovative methods.

3.5 Build capacity for the application of other UNESCO legal instruments and comple-mentary programmes for the protection of cultural heritage: Hague Convention(1954), Illicit Traffic Convention (1970), Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention(2001), “Memory of the World” and “Proclamation of the Masterpieces of Oral andIntangible Heritage” programmes;

3.6 Application of sustainable tourism management for the Asian World Heritage prop-erties, through the Sustainable Tourism Programme adopted by the Committee inDecember 2001. The World Heritage Centre should undertake case studies to:3.6.1 examine current and potential conflict,3.6.2 propose partnership solutions for sustainable heritage tourism management,3.6.3 document heritage conservation strategies and financial support mechanisms

for places where tourism is growing or expected to grow, such as Ha Long Bay,Vietnam, and World Heritage sites in China, Indonesia and Japan;

3.7 In the Asian region, UNESCO should co-ordinate a strategic Workshop in 2004-5 toexamine the case studies involving States Parties, site managers and the private sec-tor, especially regional eco-tourism operators. The Workshop should elaborate a pro-gramme outline, for consideration by the Committee in 2005, to guide sustainableheritage tourism management in the region.

4.1 Pursuant to Article 5(a) of the World Heritage Convention, the Asian States Partiesencourage the Committee to take into account in its policy the potential impact –positive and negative – of heritage conservation decisions on local communities. TheAsian States Parties recommended that the World Heritage Centre develop, for con-sideration by the Committee in 2004, an action plan to:4.1.1 Ensure dialogue with international organisations, donor bodies, NGOs and

individual experts,4.1.2 Discuss the potential role of cultural and natural World Heritage in poverty alle-

viation projects, 4.1.3 Seek heritage conservation and management funding opportunities and

increase awareness of the place of heritage in the social and economic lives ofcommunities.

97

Annex 3

3. Upgrade conservation andmanagement skills to betterconserve the World HeritageList and Tentative List properties

4. Respond to the challengeof poverty alleviation in theregion

5.1 UNESCO and the World Heritage Centre should formally review its operations in theregion by 2005 to ensure that services are provided in a co-ordinated fashion toenhance the implementation of the World Heritage Convention by the Asian StatesParties;The States Parties affirmed the role and contribution of the Asia-Pacific Focal Point,hosted by Australia, and encourage the APFP to:5.1.1 Seek funding opportunities for direct exchange programmes for World

Heritage managers from the region,5.1.2 Establish an information network on its web site to complement UNESCO web-

site to allow States Parties in the region to share information on managementplanning and Periodic Reporting,

5.1.3 Develop resources and training materials to respond to the challenges of her-itage tourism in the region;

5.2 To assist States Parties in achieving the above, the World Heritage Centre shall widelydisseminate and publicise on its website, good examples of management plans; casestudies of best practice examples of sustainable heritage conservation and develop-ment at Asian World Heritage cultural properties; and nomination files that can beadapted as appropriate.

98

Annex 3

5. Address the challenges ofinformation-sharing in theregion

Time frame

This Action Asia 2003-2009 Programme consists of operational actions, which should be implemented in order to haveconcrete results for review at the second Regional Periodic Reporting Exercise in 2009.

Partners of the programme

States Parties, Advisory Bodies, NGOs and universities active in the field of heritage conservation and management in Asia,UNESCO Regional Offices and concerned divisions at Headquarters.

99

Annex 4

Methodology

1.1 Country visits, awareness-raising, briefings and follow-up as required to includeNauru, Tonga and Tuvalu and confirm the status of the Cook Islands and Tokelau

2.1 The Pacific version of “World Heritage in Young Hands” being prepared with fund-ing from the Netherlands Government and the assistance of the New ZealandNational Commission for UNESCO and other contributors in the Pacific, is nearingcompletion. It will be disseminated, teacher-training will be organised and if possibleit will be integrated into national curricula;

2.2 A “Study Tour” for leaders from Nan Madol in the Federated States of Micronesia(FSM) to Tongariro National Park, New Zealand is being planned. The intention of thisStudy Tour is to demonstrate to the traditional leaders and elected leaders of FSMthe benefits of the World Heritage Convention and create awareness about WorldHeritage. This project is being financed by the Italian Funds in Trust;

2.3 National and sub-regional awareness-raising and workshops.

3.1 Training in the preparation of inventories, Tentative Lists and nominations;

3.2 Involve Pacific Island representatives at training workshops being organised for theAsia-Pacific region.

4.1 Support and assist on-going and new projects to develop national and sub-regionalinventories, Tentative Lists and World Heritage nominations;

4.2 Preparation of comparative and thematic studies to provide global context for futureWorld Heritage cultural and/or natural nominations in the Pacific.

Objectives

1. Ensure full membership tothe World HeritageConvention in the Pacific tostrengthen a collaborativesub-regional approach toimplementation.

2. Raise awareness about theWorld Heritage Conventionand the potential benefits ofWorld Heritage in the Pacific.

3. Build capacity for thepreparation of Tentative Listsand nominations of proper-ties for inclusion in the WorldHeritage List.

4. Ensure the representationof the Pacific cultural and nat-ural heritage on the WorldHeritage List within theframework of the GlobalStrategy for a credible, bal-anced and representativeWorld Heritage List.

World Heritage - Pacific 2009 Programme

As a logical follow-up to the Periodic Reporting exercise for Asia and the Pacific, a World Heritage Programmefor the Pacific is proposed - with a focus on consultation, capacity-building, education and preparation ofTentative Lists and nominations of properties for inclusion in the World Heritage List using a co-operative part-nership approach. Lessons learned from the Africa 2009 Programme will be used to develop the World HeritagePacific Programme. It is proposed that the Programme will include activities at the State Party level, trans-boundary pilot projects, new sub-regional initiatives, etc. Such a Programme could consolidate a number of dif-ferent activities being funded, or that have been funded, by the World Heritage Fund as well as the governmentsof Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain, Norway and France, along with support from Australia and New Zealand.

100

Annex 4

5.1 Provide assistance (capacity-building, expertise and financial assistance) to StatesParties to begin to discuss and work on transboundary and serial World Heritage nomi-nations in the Pacific.

5.2 Continue to support the pilot project to examine the feasibility of a transboundaryWorld Heritage nomination of the Central Pacific Islands (to potentially include atolls andislands in the Cook Islands, French Polynesia (France), Kiribati and the United States ofAmerica) being conducted under the global Marine theme. This project has been initiallysupported by the Netherlands Funds in Trust, the France-UNESCO Convention and theUS National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

6.1 Build the network of partners and donors and develop agreements (such as the MoUbetween Australia and UNESCO signed in May 2002 and the Arrangement betweenNew Zealand and UNESCO signed in April 2003) and identify actions to be taken inpartnership to benefit World Heritage conservation in the Pacific.

5. Promote transboundaryand/or serial marine and terrestrial nominationsincluding serial cultural land-scape projects in view of therecommendations of theGlobal Strategy meetingsheld in Fiji in 1997 andVanuatu in 1999, the meetingon “Filling Critical Gaps andPromoting Multi-SiteApproaches to NewNominations of TropicalCoastal, Marine and SmallIsland Ecosystems” in Hanoiin February 2002 and theCapacity-Building workshopin Samoa in February 2003.

6. Build partnerships withGovernment organisations,NGOs, international and mul-tilateral organisations anddonors for assistance in theimplementation of the WorldHeritage Convention in thePacific.

Time frame

In the first instance it is proposed that a consultation meeting take place in late 2003 or early 2004 with UNESCO's PacificIsland Member States, Australia, New Zealand, other States Parties with interests in the sub-region and relevant partners anddonors. The consultation meeting would plan the Pacific Programme by developing a results-based action plan to commencein 2004, with a review each 2 years and reporting as part of the next round of Periodic Reporting for the Asia-Pacific regionin 2009.

Partners of the programme

Under the umbrella of the Programme, the beneficiary Pacific Island countries, UNESCO (World Heritage Centre, Apia andother units at HQ), IUCN, ICOMOS, ICCROM, SPREP (South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme), PIMA (Pacific IslandsMuseums Association) the Bishop Museum and other relevant organisations (including NGOs such as CI, WWF, TNC etc)along with interested States Parties from the region, the donors (existing and new) will have the opportunity to worktogether in a more co-ordinated way to build opportunities for World Heritage conservation.

101

Annex 5

Sub-regional and Regional Recommendations on the Asia-PacificPeriodic Reporting Exercise

Section I Section II

Sub-regional

West-Central Asian Recommendations for Cultural Heritage

West-Central Asian Recommendations for Natural and Mixed Heritage

South Asian Recommendations for Cultural Heritage

South-East Asian Recommendations for Cultural Heritage

North-East Asian Recommendations for Cultural Heritage

Sub-regional Recommendations for Pacific Island Countries

Regional

Pan-Asian Recommendations on the Application of the World Heritage Convention for Cultural Heritage

Regional Recommendations on the Application of the World Heritage Convention for Natural and Mixed Heritage

Sub-regional

Sub-regional Recommendations for West-Central Asian Cultural Properties

Sub-regional Recommendations for South Asian Cultural Properties

Sub-regional Recommendations for South-East Asian Cultural Properties

Sub-regional Recommendations for North-East Asian Cultural Properties

Regional

Pan-Asian Recommendations for Cultural World Heritage Properties

Regional Recommendations on the Presentation of Section II Reports

Page 102

Page 104

Page 105

Page 106

Page 108

Page 109

Page 110

Page 115

Page 117

Page 119

Page 120

Page 121

Page 122

Page 124

102

Annex 5

West-Central Asian Recommendations for Cultural Heritage

These Recommendations were adopted by 6 West-Central Asian States Parties during theUNESCO Consultation Meeting of Asian StatesParties to the World Heritage Convention to preparethe “Synthesis Periodic Report for Asian CulturalHeritage”, 13-15 March 2003, UNESCO HQ, Paris

I.2. Identification of cultural and natural heritage

I.2.a. Status of national inventories and heritage legislation• Revision and/updating of national inventories• Improvement of legislation to adequately integrate the

identification of tangible and intangible cultural heritageand natural heritage

Proposed future actions:• Harmonise the existing criteria for national properties

with the criteria of the World Heritage Conventionthrough the modification of national legislation asappropriate.

• Conduct the first necessary studies, develop and publishthe revised national and local inventories of culturalproperties.

• Develop pilot projects to elaborate databases, beginningwith potential Tentative List World Heritage properties atthe regional level.

Types of assistance needed: Assistance from the WorldHeritage Fund or other international co-operation fundingwould be highly appreciated.

I.2.b. The preparation of Tentative Lists:• Revision and updating of the Tentative List

Proposed future actions:• Finalise the identification of potential World Heritage

properties (cultural and mixed) and elaboration of thenational Tentative List.

• Official submission to UNESCO World Heritage Centre ofthe revised/ updated Tentative List.

Types of assistance needed: Preparatory assistance fromthe World Heritage Fund as appropriate for the elabora-tion / revision of the national Tentative List.

I.2.c. Nominations and the nomination process:Capacity building for preparing complete and sound nom-ination dossiers, in particular for:• identifying adequate and appropriate protective zones

(core and buffer, as appropriate) of nominated or

Tentative List properties based upon the identified worldheritage values of the property.

• preparing adequate maps • finalizing, approving, and commencing the implementa-

tion of a long term management plan for nominated/Tentative List properties, in particular for historic cities.

• ensuring an adequate consultative process and informa-tion awareness at the local and national levels. In otherwords, to improve involvement of local communities andconcerned authorities in the nomination process toensure long-term conservation and sustainable develop-ment of the Tentative List properties.

Proposed future actions:• Exchange of expertise at the regional and international

levels and sharing of know-how on “good practices”,which can be adapted and reused.

• Increase training activities to build the capacities of theauthorities who prepare nomination dossiers and planlong term management of Tentative List properties at thenational, sub-regional and international levels through:(i) regional co-operation with the support of interna-tional co-operation, and in particular from UNESCO,ICOMOS and ICCROM.(ii) gradual establishment of a “regional network ofexperts” or “pool of experts”

• During the March 2003 Consultation Meeting, theGovernment of Kazakhstan invited the sub-regionalStates Parties to participate in a capacity building train-ing activity in Yasi Turkestan, a newly nominated prop-erty, to exchange experience on the nominationpreparation and consultative process, as well as the con-servation experience of the Mausoleum using new tech-nologies for restoring the historic monument.

• Implement more rigorously, the Recommendations ofthe May 2000 UNESCO World Heritage Centre CentralAsian Cultural Heritage Global Strategy Meeting.

Types of assistance needed: Preparatory assistance fromthe World Heritage Fund or other international or regionalco-operation funding, as appropriate for transfer of tech-nical knowledge for methodology and process.

I.3. Protection, conservation and presentation of cul-tural and natural heritage

I.3.a. Integration of heritage conservation within thegeneral development planning policy:• Integrate more rigorously heritage conservation of

Tentative and World Heritage List properties into futureplanning programmes.

Proposed future actions:• Establish better co-operation between the different

agencies and organisations responsible.

Section I

I.3.b. Participation of local communities:• Strengthen the capacity and increase the number of

government agencies and professional organisations inthe field of protection, management, conservation andsustainable tourism development of cultural heritage.

Proposed future actions:• Gradually improve the professional staffing and financial

support of the existing agencies.• Identify the needs and priorities in the creation of other

agencies for the protection, management, conservationand sustainable tourism development of cultural her-itage as appropriate.

• Organise training activities bringing together tour oper-ators and cultural heritage experts.

• Increase on-site training activities which address specificconservation needs of the sub-region, identified duringthe 2000 UNESCO Central Asian Cultural HeritageGlobal Strategy Meeting, and those falling within theCentral Asian Earth 2002-2012 Programme.

Types of assistance needed: International co-operation andWorld Heritage Fund assistance as appropriate, including:• grants for equipment for enhanced application of moni-

toring systems and conservation techniques• grants for organizing training activities• professional training for cultural heritage tourism

I.3.c. Tourism development:• Enhancement of scientific and technical studies con-

tributing to the process of further identification ofpotential World Heritage properties and better under-standing their heritage values.

Types of assistance needed: Increased support to historical,archaeological, ethnographical studies and surveys in dif-ferent geographical and ethno-cultural regions.

I.3.d. Financial measures (improvements therein):• Strengthen, amend and harmonise heritage protective

legislation as appropriate to increase cultural heritageconservation.

• Strengthen the protection and management of nomi-nated properties and Tentative List properties.

Proposed future actions:• Draft relevant revisions of laws and regulations.• Legally delimit territories, establish protective zones and

mechanisms, and develop management plans forTentative List properties.

I.3.e. Professional (capacity building and trainingneeds): • Enhanced organisation of professional training in man-

agement and conservation of cultural heritage at aregional level.

• Better understanding of the notion of protecting culturallandscapes, with direct reference to how to adequatelymonitor and manage such cultural / mixed heritageproperties.

Proposed future actions:• Organise UNESCO regional training courses / activities

on the management and conservation of earthen archi-tecture, archaeological sites, historic cities, monumentsand cultural landscapes.

• Increase capacity building activities which have multipliereffects, such as training of craftsmanship for buildingmaterial and conservation practices (tiles, brick, decora-tion, wall painting, etc.)

• Initiate and develop education for conservation usingthe facilities and capacities of existing institutions.

Types of assistance needed: World Heritage Fund, UNESCO,ICCROM, ICOMOS and international co-operation fundingas appropriate with national input for:(a) developing training courses / activities(b) organizing / holding training courses / activities

I.4. International co-operation and fund raising

• Enhance the exchange of experience and co-operationbetween experts and organisations of West-CentralAsian countries on the protection and conservation ofcultural heritage.

• Build capacity to effectively mobilise international co-operation to address urgent conservation, managementand development issues facing World Heritage andpotential World Heritage properties.

Proposed future actions:• Participate actively in the Central Asian Earth 2002-2012

Programme.• Organise training activities, especially at site-level, which

involve participation of regional experts.• Enhance information exchange at national, sub-regional

and international levels on various types of assistanceavailable, and enhance the modalities and proceduresfor effectively mobilizing international co-operationfunding in a timely manner.

I.5. Education, information and awareness-building

• Introduce and continue programmes for teaching cul-tural heritage at schools.

• Organise and increase publications on cultural heritage.

Proposed future actions:• Develop pilot teaching programmes for schools, or in the

case where such programmes already exist, continue theprogrammes, integrating the World Heritage educationmaterial as appropriate.

• Prepare and publish visitor maps, guidebooks and general information on Tentative List and World Heritageproperties, especially targeting large audiences and localcommunities where such heritage is located (e.g. CentralAsian cultural heritage Website to be updated regularly).

103

Annex 5

104

Annex 5

West-Central Asian Recommendations for Natural and Mixed Heritage

These Conclusions and Recommendations were formulated by 5 Central Asian States Parties, IUCN,ICOMOS and UNESCO during the UNESCO Workshopon Possibilities of Nominations on Natural and MixedWorld Heritage in Central Asia, 16-18 December2002, Almaty, Kazakhstan

The participants recognised the need to:

• Revise or add to the national Tentative Lists, natural,mixed, transboundary and thematic or cluster heritageproperties, as appropriate.

• Create a high quality and effective nomination process,by ensuring that Governments take responsibility forpreparing World Heritage nominations through:(i) the allocation of sufficient funds;(ii) better co-ordination and collaboration between the

UNESCO National Commissions, relevant Ministries,authorities and local communities, existing academicinstitutions, site managers, NGO’s and internationalorganisations;

(iii) effective use of existing national and regional expert-ise; and

(iv) realistic planning in preparing nominations.• Elaborate a Central Asian Regional Plan of Action for the

implementation of the World Heritage Convention, toinclude:(i) establishment of regional focal points for the

exchange of information, expertise and “best practicecase studies”, and to facilitate networking;

(ii) specific training activities for capacity building innomination preparation;

(iii) long-term support in the preparation of nominations.

The participants recommended that:

Central Asian States Parties to the World HeritageConvention:• Implement their ‘obligations’ under the World Heritage

Convention through the enactment and enforcement oflaws for the protection and management of heritagesites;

• Organise seminars with the participation of NationalCommissions, relevant government agencies, localauthorities and other partners to improve co-ordinationfor the implementation of the World HeritageConvention in Central Asia;

• Request assistance from the World Heritage Fund inrevising their national Tentative Lists and in preparingpotential natural heritage nominations;

• Submit revised Tentative Lists to the World HeritageCentre by 31 December 2003.

• Establish an Inter-Governmental Regional Task Groupwith experts from NGO organisations such as WWF,NABU, FFI and others as appropriate, which prepares a“Sub-regional Tentative List”, utilizing existing docu-mentation, to especially identify and propose trans-boundary sites;

• Encourage better co-ordination between the WorldHeritage and the MAB Programme of UNESCO at thenational level in order to ensure that both are mutuallysupportive;

• Consider a thematic approach in the identification andnomination of natural and mixed sites (e.g. the SilkRoad).

States Parties to the World Heritage Convention andthe World Heritage Committee:• Integrate an innovative funding initiative into the Central

Asia Regional Plan of Action for the World HeritageConvention with the assistance of the World HeritageCentre and the Advisory Bodies. Specific attentionshould be given to the possible mobilization of existing(e.g. the UNESCO World Heritage Fund and the UnitedNations Foundation); potential (e.g. the GlobalEnvironmental Facility) and new (e.g. EC TACIS CentralAsia Regional Programme and the FFI Rapid ResponseFund) resources.

The World Heritage Committee:• Make specific efforts to provide financial and technical

support to the States Parties of Central Asia for the revi-sion of their Tentative Lists and the preparation of newnominations, in particular for natural heritage;

• Support the preparation of training modules and guide-lines for National Commissions in Central Asia toincrease their capacity to co-ordinate and support WorldHeritage activities in the region, particularly in relation tonatural heritage;

• Support the translation into Russian of relevant docu-mentation which should be distributed to the CentralAsian States Parties, including national co-ordinators ofConventions;

• Request the World Heritage Centre and the AdvisoryBodies to continue and increase their support to CentralAsian States Parties in their implementation of the WorldHeritage Convention;

• Request ICOMOS to prepare, in consultation with IUCN,a thematic study on the identification and assessment ofpotential cultural landscapes in the region.

South Asian Recommendations forCultural Heritage

These Recommendations were adopted by 6 SouthAsian States Parties during the UNESCO ConsultationMeeting of Asian States Parties to the WorldHeritage Convention to prepare the “SynthesisPeriodic Report for Asian Cultural Heritage”, 13-15March 2003, UNESCO HQ, Paris


• It is recommended that a National Inventory be devel-oped based on specific thematic issues which reflectsocio-cultural issues of outstanding universal signifi-cance (for example: thematic issue of non violence inSouth Asia).

• It is recommended that after the identification of the siteas a World Heritage Property, the possibility of applyingother UNESCO instruments for the protection of culturalheritage should be examined, such as the “Memory ofthe World Programme for documentary heritage” and“Proclamation of the master pieces of oral and intangi-ble heritage of humankind”.

I.3. Protection, conservation and presentation of thecultural and natural heritage

I.3.a. Integration of heritage conservation within thegeneral development planning policy:• It is recommended that prior to undertaking infrastruc-

ture development in and around a World Heritage site itshould be mandatory to do a cultural impact assessmentfor which new protocols and methods should be devel-oped with the assistance of the World Heritage Centre.

• It is recommended that this process of undertaking a cul-tural impact assessment of World Heritage sites shouldestablish models and set precedents for the undertakingof similar cultural impact assessments to protect all heritage sites.

I.3.b. Legislation: • It is recommended that all legislation relevant to heritage

protection should be put into a searchable database.

I.3.c. Participation of local communities:• It is recommended that the formulation by national

authorities of the required management plans in consul-tation with the local community prior to submission ofthe nomination dossier be made mandatory.

• It is recommended that traditional custodians of theWorld Heritage Properties be educated and trained inconservation and protection of these properties.

I.3.d. Tourism development: • It is recommended that a plan for regulation/ control of

tourism be a prerequisite for inscription on WorldHeritage Site Lists (this requires revision of the opera-tional guidelines which are currently under revision).

• It is recommended that the sustainable tourism ofBhutan be studied as a best practice management tool.

I.3.e. Financial measures and budget allowances: • It is recommended that the revenue collection of Sri

Lanka, which was launched in 1990, be studied as a bestpractice management tool.

I.3.f. Professionals• It is recommended that each State party develop a data-

base of professionals. This information could serve as acontribution to a global databank of experts to be man-aged and updated by the World Heritage Centre.

• It is recommended that the World Heritage Centre investin sub-regional technical and training programmes aseach sub-region has its own training techniques and tra-ditional materials.

• It is recommended that the World Heritage Centre sup-port the new UNESCO/ICCROM program for networkingof universities in the region known as the AsianAcademy of Cultural Heritage Management.

• It is recommended that staff be trained in modern tech-nical tools, such as GIS, non-destructive mapping andscientific advances in conservation.

• It is recommended that advanced professional training inplanning and heritage protection legislation be sup-ported.

I.4. International co-operation and fund raising:

• It is recommended that when States Parties negotiateloans for infrastructure development, the World HeritageCentre assist them in integrating funds for heritage con-servation as part of the package.


• It is recommended that World Heritage education beincorporated formally in the education curriculum.

• It is recommended that the World Heritage Centredevelop a site-specific testing system for the certificationof World Heritage guides.

Conclusions

• It is recommended that relationships be establishedbetween States Parties of South Asia in terms of docu-mentation, management, conservation and training.

• It is recommended that an interim review be organisedevery two years on a sub-regional basis. In conjunctionwith this, a sub-regional meeting of World Heritage SiteManagers should be convened every two years.

105

Annex 5

South-East Asian Recommendations for Cultural Heritage

These Recommendations were adopted by 8 South-East Asian States Parties during the UNESCOConsultation Meeting of Asian States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to prepare the“Synthesis Periodic Report for Asian CulturalHeritage”, 13-15 March 2003, UNESCO HQ, Paris


I.2.a. Status of national inventories and heritage legislation:• Many States Parties do not have National Inventories;

or need to revise or update them.• There is a need for improvement of legislation to ade-

quately integrate the identification of tangible and intan-gible cultural heritage and natural heritage

Proposed future actions:• UNESCO to provide examples of definition of cultural

heritage and national inventory formats gathered fromvarious countries.

• Based on these examples, States Parties will elaboratetheir own definition and format; and Ministries ofCulture will ask provincial authorities supported by uni-versity and research groups, to propose improved legis-lations for consideration by the central government.

Types of assistance needed: Assistance from World HeritageFund and other international co-operation funding; UNESCO’shelp in mobilising financial and intellectual support.

I.2.b. The preparation of Tentative Lists:• Tentative Lists needs updating after careful reflection

taking into consideration broader and new understand-ing of heritage.

Proposed future actions:• UNESCO to provide good examples of Tentative List for-

mats and statements of significance.• Finalise the identification of potential World Heritage prop-

erties (cultural and mixed), elaborate the national TentativeLists, and perhaps organise a SE Asian States Parties meet-ing to thematically review the new Tentative Lists.

• Official submission to UNESCO World Heritage Centre ofthe revised/ updated Tentative Lists.

• Preparatory assistance from the World Heritage Fund asappropriate for the elaboration / revision of the nationalTentative List.

I.2.c. Nominations and the nomination process:• There is a need for capacity building for preparing com-

plete and sound nomination dossiers, in particular for:(i) identifying core, buffer, and support zone as appro-priate of nominated or Tentative List properties basedupon the identified World Heritage values of the property.

(ii) preparing adequate maps(iii) consulting with local authorities and populations

Proposed future actions:• Transmit good examples of management plans and

nomination files to be posted on the UNESCO website.• Carry out national workshops to share good examples

and adaptively reuse.• Exchange expertise at regional and international level to

share know-how on “good practices” to be adaptivelyreused based on local considerations.

• Increase training activities to build the capacities of theauthorities who prepare nomination dossiers and planlong term management of Tentative List properties, toprepare in advance the nomination files and manage-ment plans of the Tentative List sites.

Types of assistance needed: Preparatory assistance fromthe World Heritage Fund or other international or regionalco-operation, as appropriate for the transfer of technicalknowledge for methodology and process


I.3.a. Integration of heritage conservation within thegeneral development planning policy:• There is a need for integration of core and peripheral

World Heritage zoning in comprehensive planning. • There is a need to monitor all Official Development

Assistance projects, which impact on World Heritagesites and seek active involvement in the World Heritageconservation process. For example, there is a need toexamine how urban and rural infrastructure projects ofthe World Bank, ADB and EU among other donors canbe used to benefit urban and landscape conservationand development of buffer / support zones.

• There is a need to bolster community involvement in theWorld Heritage conservation process, using examplessuch as the village contract in Luang Prabang.

• There is a need to study means of redirecting tourismrevenue towards cultural heritage conservation.

Proposed future actions:• Establish better co-operation between the different

responsible agencies and organisations. • Examine existing examples of inter-ministerial commis-

sions at national level or inter-departmental commissionsat local provincial level.

• States Parties should forward UNESCO examples of best prac-tice in local community participation in heritage conservation.

• States Parties to send UNESCO statutes or contractsbetween government cultural agencies and tourismdepartment or private companies to share amongstWorld Heritage site management authorities for adap-tive reuse. Examples such as ASPARA, Hue ConservationCentre, and Borobudur for on-site ticketing could beuseful, while other examples from outside the region ontourism/hotel/airport taxes, etc., to benefit heritage con-servation may be of use.

106

Annex 5

Types of assistance needed: UNESCO support in partici-pating in ODA programme planning missions. UNESCO togather and disseminate good practice examples on theUNESCO website and perhaps in publications. UNESCO togather examples and post on website or to communicatethrough publications.

I.3.b. Status of services for protection, conservationand preservation:• There is a need to further examine and explore the fea-sibility of public-private co-operation for conservation andheritage related business development (APSARA model).

Proposed future actions:• Gather examples of different management authorities

(statutes, terms of reference, etc.). • Gather examples of tourism facilities (visitor centres,

souvenir shops, toilets, etc.) for ideas on good and badexamples.

Types of assistance needed: International co-operation andWorld Heritage Fund assistance as appropriate.

I.3.c. Scientific and technical studies and research • There is a need for enhancement of scientific and tech-

nical studies.

Proposed future actions:• Organise university traineeships in ministries and local

authorities.

Types of assistance needed: Request UNESCO to facilitatethe process by developing format for request and application.

I.3.d. Measures for identification, protection, conser-vation, presentation and rehabilitation:

Proposed future actions:• Promote cooperation between government bodies and

universities/research institutions to evaluate legal andmanagement frameworks, training programmes formanagement, skills upgrading, etc.

I.3.e. Professionals: • There is a need to promote professional training in

management and conservation of cultural heritage atregional and international levels on a thematic basis.

Proposed future actions:• Organise UNESCO regional training courses / activities

on the management and conservation of themes to beidentifies at national level and see how regional or inter-national cooperation can support the national and localsite needs.

• Increase capacity building activities, which have multi-plier effects. Identify locations for on-the-job, on-sitetraining (e.g. urban conservation in Luang Prabang,mural painting in Pagan, archaeological research in MySon and Wat Phu and in other parts of the region.

Types of assistance needed: World Heritage Fund,UNESCO, ICCROM, ICOMOS and international co-opera-tion as appropriate with national input for developingtraining courses / activities, and organizing trainingcourses.


• Enhance the exchange of experience and co-operationbetween experts and organisations within the country(between sites); within the region (ASEAN, ASEFUNESCO, etc.) and internationally (ICCROM, bilateralscholarship opportunities, etc.).

Proposed future actions:• Gather information in a systematic way on opportunities

offered at the national level (universities, research oroperational projects) to benefit others from the country;at the regional and international levels.

Types of assistance needed: UNESCO to write circular let-ters to potential donors on needs; monitor ODA projectgrant and loan possibilities, etc.; provide seed fundingfrom World Heritage Fund to be used as catalytic fundingto obtain additional funding.


• Introduce and continue programmes for teaching cul-tural heritage at schools in formal education curriculaand in informal education.

• Organise publications on cultural heritage and developnew publications.


case where such programmes already exist, continue theprogrammes integrating the World Heritage educationmaterial as appropriate.

• Prepare and publish visitor maps, guidebooks and gen-eral information on Tentative List and World Heritageproperties, especially targeting large audiences and localcommunities where such heritage is located

• Find commercial publishers for mass publication ofWorld Heritage Education kit, etc.

Types of assistance needed: World Heritage Fund as seedmoney to generate more funding in a catalytic manner.

107

Annex 5

North-East Asian Recommendations for Cultural Heritage

These Recommendations were adopted by 5 North-East Asian States Parties during the UNESCOConsultation Meeting of Asian States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to prepare the“Synthesis Periodic Report for Asian CulturalHeritage”, 13-15 March 2003, UNESCO HQ, Paris


• To respond to the challenge of imbalance among coun-tries in their representation on the World Heritage List.Regarding North-East Asia, it is recommended thatresearch and study of heritage properties by category beundertaken for the nomination and inscription of cul-tural properties.

• The temporary decision to limit the number of new nom-inations per year per country should be abandoned.

• Also, legal provision for the protection of the protectivebuffer zone should be provided for in the national legis-lation. A clear definition/clarification should be made bythe World Heritage Committee on the boundary andlegal status of the nominated buffer zone, in particularin the Nomination Format (I. 2). This definition should bebased on the types of heritage properties (cultural, nat-ural or mixed), and should be precise and concise.


I.3.a. Integration of heritage and planning: • To be consistent with Article 5 of the World Heritage

Convention, this group endorsed the Hanoi WorkshopRecommendation 2 in which the States Parties recom-mend that the Committee develop, for consideration in2004, an action plan to:(i) ensure ongoing dialogue with international organisa-tions, donor bodies, NGOs and individual experts;(ii) discuss the role of cultural and natural World Heritagein poverty alleviation projects; (iii) seek heritage conservation and management fund-ing opportunities and increase awareness of the place ofheritage in the social and economic lives of communities.

• As the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation ofthe World Heritage Convention continue to be revised,the World Heritage Committee should consider anexplicit clause to ensure that, in making decisions on theconservation of natural and cultural World Heritageproperties, it gives adequate and appropriate considera-tion to the potential impact of those decisions on thesocial and economic livelihood of local and regionalcommunities.

I.3.b. Tourism Development:• Tourism planning should be put into the control of heritage

management authorities. The tourism industry should pro-vide inputs for the protection of heritage sites, in particularthose sites on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

I.3.c. Financial measures and budget allowances: • In line with Article 17 of the Convention, the States

Parties (Central and local authorities) should set asidespecial funds, in the budgets of public authorities, forthe protection of the cultural and natural heritageendangered by large-scale public or private work.

• States Parties should take responsibility to establish afinancial mechanism (Heritage Trust or Bond) to increasefinancial resources for the protection of heritage sites.

I.3.d. Professionals:• A research programme on heritage conservation

(methodology, best practices, etc.) should be developedat the sub-regional level (sharing commonalities) or evenat the regional level.


• States Parties should take responsibility to establish afinancial mechanism (Heritage Trust or Bond) to increasefinancial resources for the protection of heritage sites.


• With regard to the implementation of Article 27 of theConvention, heritage education should be integratedinto the curriculum development for secondary and uni-versity (higher) education systems.

• The initiative of the Asian Academy on Cultural HeritageManagement was noted. Further consolidation isrequired.

• Information sharing on site information, management plan-ning and conservation methodologies was recommended.

• The national language versions of the Convention, theOperational Guidelines, the International assistancerequest forms and other related World Heritage baselineinformation should be produced and made available forthe site managers.

• It was requested that the World Heritage Centre assist inmaking the bibliographic documentation of the property(Nomination dossier, Evaluation Reports and the State ofconservation Records, etc.) accessible to the site managers.

Conclusions

• It was strongly recommended that the Recommendationconcerning the Protection, at the National Level, of theCultural and Natural Heritage adopted by the GeneralConference of UNESCO in November 1972 should beapplied, to the extent possible, for the implementationof the World Heritage Convention.

• The item on “Heritage Conservation and Development”should be integrated into the agenda of the Round Tablefor the Culture Ministers of North-East Asia due to takeplace in August 2003 in Macau.

• The proposal for the establishment of a Sub-regionalNetwork of Heritage Managers in North-East Asia wasdiscussed and agreed. Further elaboration of the con-cept amongst the five countries was agreed andUNESCO will facilitate this Forum.

108

Annex 5

• It was recommended that capacity-building activities becarried out within this framework, and using the existinginstitutions such as the ACCU. These activities willinclude: a Sub-regional workshop on Global Strategy(2004); training courses on Site Management (2004);sub-regional exchange of expertise for monitoring thestate of conservation of Cultural Heritage properties;and sharing of information at the sub-regional level.

Sub-regional Recommendations for PacificIsland Countries

These Recommendations derive, in part, from theWorld Heritage Capacity Building Workshop for thePacific, UNESCO Office Apia, Samoa, 12-21 February2003. The workshop was attended by representa-tives of the Cook Islands, Kiribati, the MarshallIslands, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu andVanuatu

Membership of the World Heritage Convention:

• UNESCO to seek full sub-regional membership of theConvention (to include Nauru, Tonga and Tuvalu withconfirmation of status of the Cook Islands and Tokelau).

• Pacific-wide membership of the Convention will ensurea strengthened and collaborative sub-regional approachto implementation.

National inventories and Tentative Lists:

• Most PICs are developing national cultural and natural heritage inventories, however, few PICs have prepared aWorld Heritage Tentative List.

• Additional technical and financial assistance is requiredin this regard and sub-regional harmonisation will beimportant.

Integration of policy on heritage and planning:

• In some Pacific Island Countries (PIC) heritage conserva-tion legislation exists in addition to traditional customaryland and sea tenure and protection. In some cases leg-islative and policy reform is underway.

• A desk study sub-regional overview of heritage conser-vation legislation to gauge preparedness for futureWorld Heritage protection would be timely.

• Some PICs have demonstrated an interest in developingintegrated CH and NH conservation and planning forWorld Heritage.

• In the first instance, the creation of national WorldHeritage Committees is recommended with the involve-ment of CH and NH agencies, traditional leaders andlocal communities.

Financial measures and budget allowance:

• PICs are, and will continue to be, largely dependent onoutside sources of funding for World Heritage identifica-tion, protection and presentation.

• Additional extra-budgetary donor support is requestedfor capacity building for World Heritage (including TLs, their regional harmonization, nominations, publicawareness and education, etc.) in the context of a well-planned and co-ordinated sub-regional approach toWorld Heritage conservation for the Pacific.

109

Annex 5

Professional Capacity:

• UNESCO is requested to find funding for participantsfrom the Pacific to attend the World Heritage Committeemeetings. International and Asia-Pacific training work-shops (including those organised by UNESCO, ICOMOS,IUCN and ICCROM) should include participants from thePacific and professional capacity should be strengthenedin co-ordination with the South Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme (SPREP) and the Pacific Islands MuseumsAssociation (PIMA).

Issues to be addressed:

• It is recommended that a medium-term Pacific Sub-Regional World Heritage Programme be developed bythe end of 2003 to be discussed at a sub-regional meet-ing in late 2003/early 2004.

• Following the signature of Memoranda of Understandingbetween UNESCO and Australia (2002) and UNESCOand New Zealand (2003), and the establishment of theAsia-Pacific Focal Point for World Heritage Management,PICs would like to invite Australia and New Zealandalong with donors and other inter-governmental andnon-governmental partners to this meeting to build co-operation.

• Furthermore, it is recommended that the Pacific IslandStates Parties meet every 2 years, for the preparation ofthe next Periodic Report. Given that the Pacific is a prior-ity for World Heritage, UNESCO is requested to make thenecessary commitment for long-term staffing and consultant support at UNESCO Apia and at UNESCOHeadquarters and to ensure a full-time regional focalpoint/co-ordinator to co-ordinate the Pacific Sub-Regional World Heritage Programme.

Information and Awareness:

• A World Heritage Information package for the PICsneeds to be developed.

• The Pacific version of the World Heritage Education Kit“World Heritage in Young Hands” (under developmentin New Zealand) should have broad dissemination in thesub-region in English and in French with the possibility ofother Pacific Island language versions.

• Teacher training should be organised to support theintroduction of the Pacific version of the Kit.

Pan-Asian Recommendations on theApplication of the World HeritageConvention for Cultural Heritage

These Conclusions, Recommendations and ActionPlans were formulated by 25 Asian States Partiesduring the UNESCO “Regional Consultation Meetingon the Preparation of the Synthesis Periodic Reportfor Cultural Heritage in Asia”, 13-15 March 2003,UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, France

I.2. Identification of cultural heritage

I.2.a. Status of national inventories and heritage legislation:• Many States Parties do not have national inventories,

and those that do exist are usually biased towards mon-umental and archaeological sites. Elaborating, revisingand updating national cultural heritage inventories areactivities foreseen for most Asian States Parties, placingdue emphasis on heritage which reflect the diversesocio-cultural heritage of the region.

• National legislation needs to be consolidated, reviewedoften harmonised and updated to permit adequate iden-tification and protection of the wide range of tangibleand intangible cultural heritage in the Asian region.

Proposed future actions:• Provision by UNESCO of examples of the definitions of

cultural heritage and national inventory formats gath-ered from various countries.

• Establishment by World Heritage Centre of an on-linedatabase for collating national heritage legislation in theAsian Region concerning World Heritage cultural her-itage. States Parties simultaneously to undertake areview and possible revision of national legislation andtransmit these to World Heritage Centre. A review of thelegal status of the boundaries of each inscribed AsianWorld Heritage cultural property should be undertakenby the States Parties concerned, and if World Heritageproperties are not protected by law, corrective actionsshould be taken.

Types of assistance needed:• Assistance from UNESCO and other international co-

operation agencies for financial and technical support isrequired for compiling World Heritage cultural heritagelegislation in an on-line database.

• Technical assistance from the World Heritage Fund tomap and zone World Heritage cultural properties mayalso be required.

I.2.b. The preparation of Tentative Lists: • The Tentative Lists of most Asian States Parties need

updating for cultural heritage based upon careful analy-sis and taking into consideration the World HeritageCommittee’s Global Strategy for a more representativeWorld Heritage List.

110

Annex 5

Proposed future actions:• UNESCO to provide good examples of Tentative Lists and

statements of significance to Asian States Parties. • Sub-regional workshops of experts from Asian States

Parties should be organised to review and harmoniseTentative Lists, to be followed by national workshops torevise as appropriate, national Tentative Lists for bothcultural and mixed sites.

• To clear any confusion concerning the requirements ofthe Tentative List formats, World Heritage Centre shouldremind Asian States Parties on such requirementsrequesting them to officially submit revised or updatedTentative Lists by the 29th session of the World HeritageCommittee, if the current Tentative List is not yet in therequired format.

Types of assistance needed: Preparatory assistance fromthe World Heritage Fund to organise sub-regional work-shops to discuss and harmonise Tentative Lists and for thepreparation of national Tentative Lists.

I.2.c. Nominations and the nomination process: • Asian States Parties agreed on the common need for

capacity building for preparing complete and soundnomination dossiers, and in particular for:

• identifying core, buffer, and support zones as appropri-ate based upon the identified heritage values of theproperty;

• preparing adequate maps which can also be used asmanagement tools;

• consultation with local authorities and communities thathave stakes in the World Heritage conservation process.

• Asian States Parties also agreed on the common need forcapacity building for post-WH inscription for synergisticapplication of other UNESCO legal instruments and compli-mentary programmes for the protection of cultural heritage,such as the 1954 Hague Convention, the 1970 Illicit TrafficConvention, the 2001 Underwater CH Convention, and the “Memory of the World” and “Proclamation of theMasterpieces of Oral and Intangible Heritage” programmes.Finally, some Asian States Parties felt that the limitation ofone new nomination per year per country may not serve thepurposes of the World Heritage Committee’s Global Strategyfor a more representative World Heritage List.

Proposed future actions:• Particularly good examples of management plans and

nomination files to be widely disseminated and publi-cised on World Heritage Centre’s website.

• Regional, sub-regional and national workshops shouldbe held to increase the capacity of authorities in thepreparation of nominations and management plans.

• Exchange of expertise at the regional and internationallevels and sharing of know-how on “good practices” tobe adapted and re-used to be promoted through site vis-its, publication of best practice case studies, and theorganisation of workshops.

• Various legal instruments should be translated into thelanguages of States Parties where this has not alreadybeen done, and national workshops supported byUNESCO legal assistance should be organised to synergise the application of UNESCO cultural heritagelegal instruments.

Types of assistance needed: Preparatory assistance fromthe World Heritage Fund, the UNESCO Regular Programme,extra-budgetary sources, and co-operation betweenStates Parties to elaborate complete and sound nomina-tion dossiers.

I.3. Protection, conservation and presentation of cultural heritage

I.3.a. Integration of heritage conservation within thegeneral development planning policy:• The concerns of conservation and management of

World Heritage cultural properties, including buffer andsupport zones, need to be fully integrated into compre-hensive urban and territorial planning policies.

• A methodology or methodologies for undertaking cul-tural impact assessments need to be established andincorporated systematically prior to finalising and imple-menting infrastructure or other development planswhich impact upon World Heritage cultural properties.

• Multi and bi-lateral development assistance projects(especially infrastructure development projects) need tobe monitored for their impact on heritage sites. Theactive involvement and co-operation of ODA donors(World Bank, ADB, JICA, JBIC and EU, amongst others)

111

Annex 5

© U

NES

CO

Participants of the “RegionalConsultationMeeting on thePreparation of theSynthesis PeriodicReport for CulturalHeritage in Asia”,and UNESCO WorldHeritage Centrestaff

in the World Heritage conservation process should beactively sought so that development projects on WorldHeritage cultural properties benefit the heritage conser-vation and development processes of the designatedWorld Heritage areas. Development projects on WorldHeritage cultural properties should be designed to incor-porate elements of resource sustainability, employmentand other benefits for the local communities, especiallyin cases where poverty alleviation is a priority issue.

Proposed future actions:• In order to establish better co-operation between the

different agencies and organisations responsible, the fol-lowing processes were deemed potentially useful: Examination and comparison of existing examples ofinter-ministerial commissions at the national level orinter-departmental commissions at the local provinciallevel, to seek examples of best practices.

• Establishment of national GIS systems for inventoryingand mapping cultural heritage together with demo-graphic, infrastructural information into data layers forjoint and shared information management and utiliza-tion by the relevant and concerned planning authorities.

• Effective monitoring indicators need to be establishedand tested.

• Cultural impact assessments of proposed developmentactivities need to be systematically conducted, in co-operation with the donor agencies. In addition, on-siteproject teams implementing development activities needto be made aware of heritage conservation needs.UNESCO should actively participate in ODA activity plan-ning missions as well as in periodical monitoring of theimplementation of such activities.

• There is a need to raise awareness of the developmentagencies on the benefits that cultural heritage conservationcan bring to the overall development process. UNESCOfield offices need to be sensitised to such benefits andmandated to ensure that these needs are incorporated intoUNDAFs and subsequent project review meetings.

Types of assistance needed: Mobilization of (a) co-opera-tion among Asian States Parties’ authorities responsible fordevelopment activities to benefit the World Heritage con-servation process; and (b) cooperation among interna-tional development assistance agencies, States Parties andUNESCO to ensure that the ODA activities are planned andimplemented to meet both development and heritageconservation needs.

I.3.b. Participation of local communities:• In general, community involvement in the management

of World Heritage properties should be encouraged.• Management plans accompanying nomination dossiers

should always include a section on how local communityinvolvement will be incorporated into the managementand stewardship of World Heritage cultural properties.

• Traditional custodians, such as Buddhist monks, Hinduand Christian priests, mosque waqaf property trustees,or traditional owners of heritage need to be fullyinvolved in the World Heritage conservation process andtheir role as co-guardian of World Heritage responsible

for the conservation and maintenance of World Heritagecultural properties appropriately recognised.

Proposed future actions:• Examples of best practices of local community participa-

tion in heritage conservation in Asia and beyond shouldbe collected by the States Parties and transmitted toWorld Heritage Centre for collation and disseminationelectronically and in hardcopy form.

• Based upon the collated best practice case studies, amanual or other training material should be developedby UNESCO and the Advisory Bodies.

• Such manuals or training materials should be used at on-site training workshops and eventually the processshould be mainstreamed into the curriculum of traininginstitutions if appropriate.

Types of assistance needed: Asian States Parties to submitbest practice case studies to World Heritage Centre, withassistance from the World Heritage Fund as appropriateand as necessary for compiling case studies and for theirelectronic uploading and printing in hardcopy versions.

I.3.c. Tourism development:• Tourism management on World Heritage cultural proper-

ties should ideally fall under the direct control or regulationof the site management authorities responsible for site pro-tection, conservation, and other management tasks.

• Management plans elaborated for nomination dossiersshould always include a section on how on-site tourismwill be managed and regulated, bearing in mind the car-rying capacity of each heritage property.

• Tour operators and guides of World Heritage culturalheritage should be required to have training in both thehistorical information and conservation requirements ofthe property concerned.

• Means of income generation at and for World Heritagecultural properties and schemes for redirecting tourismrevenue towards cultural heritage conservation need tobe studied with a view to establishing, wherever possi-ble, a linkage between tourism use and heritage conser-vation at World Heritage cultural properties based on theprinciple of “user pays.”

• Implementation of the above measures requires thataccurate tourism statistics be collected and made avail-able to heritage management authorities.

Proposed future actions:• World Heritage Centre to disseminate information to

Asian States Parties on the need for integrating tourismmanagement within management plans or mechanisms.

• Best practice examples of tourism management from theAsian Region to be collected and disseminated.

• Statutes or contracts between heritage conservationauthorities and tourism departments or private compa-nies regulating revenue generation from tourism (ticket-ing, taxation, other marketing strategies) should becollated together with best practice case studies, espe-cially those emphasizing re-investment of tourism rev-enue for World Heritage cultural conservation.

112

Annex 5

• Current practices of national and on-site tourism author-ities in collecting tourism statistics should be examined,reviewed, and where needed, improved.

Types of assistance needed: Asian States Parties to provideinformation on case studies to World Heritage Centre andWorld Heritage Fund and extrabudgetary assistanceneeded to collate, publish and disseminate (electronicallyand hardcopy) the case studies for tourism management.

I.3.d. Financial measures (improvements therein): • It is necessary to examine the feasibility and means of

mobilizing public-private cooperation for conservationand heritage related business development at both thenational and site level.

• The use of Trust Funds, Foundations, Bonds and similarmechanisms specifically designed for sustainable financ-ing of heritage conservation should be examined and ifappropriate, made use of by Asian States Parties, or byprivate national or regional institutions.

• Successful implementation of such fiscal measuresrequires accurate statistics to be first collected andanalysed by heritage management authorities.

Proposed future actions:• Gather and share examples of different Asian manage-

ment authorities (statutes, terms of reference), andtourism facilities (visitors centres, souvenir shops, toilets)and analyse them in comparison to other internationalmodels together with information on the legal provisionsin place to implement such fiscal models.

• Current practices of collecting and analyzing financialstatistics should be examined, and improved as deemedappropriate.

Types of assistance needed: States Parties to transmitinformation to World Heritage Centre, which collates themodel examples, with support from the World HeritageFund or extrabudgetary sources.

I.3.e. Professional (capacity building and trainingneeds): • The Asian States Parties agreed that for World Heritage

cultural heritage, there is a need for:• Enhancement of scientific and technical studies benefit-

ing World Heritage cultural heritage.• Promotion of professional training in management and

conservation of World Heritage cultural heritage at aregional level, in particular for:

• Management skills (monitoring and statistical indicators,fiscal management, site interpretation, technical skillsincluding GIS and other IT applications, remote sensingmapping and non-destructive methods of investigation).

• Conservation skills (landscapes, conservation of exposedarchaeological sites, earthen architecture, vernacular archi-tecture, especially wooden and other perishable materials,“modern” construction materials (e.g. cement).

• Supporting and strengthening the link between scientificresearch, professional capacity building, and politicaldecision making at national, provincial and local levels.

• A regional databank or roster of professionals active inthe World Heritage cultural field.

Proposed future actions:• Identify research priority World Heritage cultural conser-

vation issues and mobilise existing universities or institu-tions to conduct research on such issues, possiblythrough an inter-university research team.

• Organise professional courses for advanced students, aswell as advanced and refresher courses for in-service pro-fessionals.

• Increase capacity building activities benefiting WorldHeritage cultural heritage which have multiplier effects,especially on-the-job, on-site training activities.

Types of assistance needed:• World Heritage Centre consolidates priority issues based

on Periodic Reports from Asian States Parties, andtogether with the Advisory Bodies, other UNESCO serv-ices, and Asian States Parties, mobilises assistance tosupport research in these issues.

• World HeritageC, with support from the World HeritageCommittee, integrates a regional on-line databank ofprofessionals active in the World Heritage cultural fieldinto the World Heritage Centre information manage-ment system.

I.3.f. New and improved services • GIS is in operation at some Asian World Heritage cultural

properties and has proven to be a useful tool. The AsianStates Parties recognised that appropriate GISs should besupported, technically and financially, both at the sitelevel and for national inventories.

• Bibliographic, archival, cartographic and topographicalinformation, photos and other data banks need to besystematically established and mechanisms to shareinformation need to be improved and made accessible(on line) to those responsible for managing Asian cul-tural heritage.

Proposed future actions:• Promotion of co-operation between government bodies,

universities and research institutions to increase theapplication of appropriate GISs for Asian World Heritagecultural properties.

• Links with universities to sustain, support, develop andupdate GISs are crucial.

Types of assistance needed:• States Parties to identify and inform on the current state

of data banks, information management systems andGIS in place benefiting Asian World Heritage culturalproperties.

• World Heritage Centre to examine the feasibility ofdevelop and establishing a website portal for access toGISs of Asian World Heritage cultural properties.

113

Annex 5

I.3.g. (Other) Issues: • Looting, vandalism and theft at World Heritage cultural

properties is a persisting problem, and the Asian StatesParties underscored the need to review progress made toreduce such threats before the 30th Session of the WorldHeritage Committee (i.e. every three years).

Proposed future actions:• A mechanism for immediate reporting of theft to INTER-

POL and other UNESCO partners for this purpose needsto be established.

• Effective legal measures need to be enacted andenforced on-site. Asian States Parties not yet party to the1970 Illicit Traffic Convention and the 1995 UNIDROITConvention are strongly encouraged to ratify, with assis-tance in drawing up national legislation and training oflaw enforcement agencies from UNESCO’s legal service.

Types of assistance needed: Mobilisation of legal andcapacity building assistance from UNESCO.


• There is a need to enhance exchange of information,experience and co-operation between experts, organisa-tions and financial planning authorities at the national,regional and international levels, to ensure that WorldHeritage conservation is integrated within the financialagenda, and to avoid duplication of efforts at WorldHeritage cultural properties.

• The establishment of multi-year programmes with multi-donor support (such as Africa 2009 or Central AsianEarth 2002-2012 programmes), is a strategy whichshould be pursued for the Asian Region and its sub-regions for cultural heritage.

Proposed future actions:• World Heritage Centre to gather ODA information bene-

fitting and impacting upon Asian World Heritage culturalproperties.

• UNESCO to monitor and to advise on the ODA activities.

Types of assistance needed: World Heritage Centre towrite circular letters to potential donors on priority needsfacing Asian World Heritage cultural properties and tomonitor ODA project grant and loan possibilities. Seedmoney from the World Heritage Fund is necessary toobtain additional funding.


• Introduce or continue programmes for teaching culturalWorld Heritage at schools in formal education curriculaand in informal education, utilizing the World HeritageEducation Kit as appropriate, with a view to encouragingthe integration of World Heritage Education into the for-mal curriculum.

• Increase publications on cultural World Heritage, andmake these available on-site and on-line.

• Regional partners specialising in information and aware-

ness raising should be further mobilised to raise aware-ness of World Heritage and related conservation anddevelopment issues.

• The use of television should be further promoted to raiseawareness of World Heritage, and in particular thethreats facing Asian World Heritage cultural properties.


case where such programmes already exist, continue theprogrammes, integrating the World Heritage educationmaterial as appropriate.

• Translate and reproduce the World Heritage EducationKit into local languages.

• Prepare and publish visitor maps, guidebooks and gen-eral information on Tentative List and World Heritageproperties, especially targeting large audiences and localcommunities where such heritage is located.

• Special supplementary information on regional andnational issues facing Asian States Parties for culturalheritage should be prepared and disseminated, possiblyprioritizing documentary programmes on specific WorldHeritage cultural properties under threat, and short“advertising” slots to be aired pro bono (the model ofUNICEF and UNHCR could be applied).

• Roundtables of Ministers from the region should be con-vened regularly on a regional and/or subregional basis toincrease awareness of senior policy makers.

Types of assistance needed:• Extrabudgetary funds to support World Heritage

Education activities, exploring commercial co-publica-tion arrangements.

• Seed money for publication preparation perhaps may benecessary from the World Heritage Fund, while printingcosts should be subsidised from on-site publication sales,gate fees, etc.

• States Parties are encouraged to draft and transmit infor-mation to World Heritage Centre for on-line dissemination.

• World Heritage Centre is requested to negotiate withbroadcast companies (e.g. Star TV etc, together with UNTV and UNESCO TV), to disseminate World Heritageinformation.

114

Annex 5

Regional Recommendations on theApplication of the World HeritageConvention for Natural and MixedHeritage

These Conclusions and Recommendations wereadopted by 11 Asia-Pacific States Parties at theUNESCO “Workshop for the Preparation of RegionalSynthesis Periodic Reports on Natural and MixedWorld Heritage Properties in Asia and the Pacific”,20-22 January 2003, Hanoi, Vietnam

1. Identified Needs

Integration of policy on heritage and planning: • There are few countries with specific World Heritage leg-

islation but many have legislation for NH at national,regional and provincial levels. In some cases, there is a need to clarify protective mechanisms for WorldHeritage Properties.

• There is some concern over communication and integra-tion between natural and cultural sites. This also appliesto UNESCO. Consideration could be given to the cre-ation of an interdepartmental committee, as used byJapan.

Financial measures and budget allowance: • While funding is provided for heritage generally, it is not

necessarily sufficient to protect natural heritage proper-ties. States Parties provide the basics – such as salaries –but some need better targeting of resources to addressspecific conservation requirements.

• States Parties should be encouraged to identify means ofgenerating money for World Heritage site management,especially from tourism. Comparative data is needed to report on World Heritage funding in the Asia-PacificRegion, compared to other regions, in order to seekgreater funding equity.

Professional capacity: • The need for a greater integrated effort between donor

countries to match up with the direct needs of site man-agement, and for information sharing for education andfor facilitation of exchanges.

• A new integrated approach is needed for training anddevelopment – balancing the needs of conservation andgrowing tourism in the region. We would encourage allStates Parties in the region to consider this.

New and improved services: • We recommend that the World Heritage Centre, IUCN

and ICOMOS provide guidance to States Parties onpotential areas for nomination.

• We request that the World Heritage Centre and advisorybodies provide a guide for people and administrationswho are unfamiliar with the Convention to assist them inevaluating the potential of particular sites for WorldHeritage nomination.

• In the Asia-Pacific Focal Point (APFP) web and work planredesign, States Parties request an information networkto help access site management plans, training and edu-cation opportunities and links with the sites of the WorldHeritage Centre, advisory bodies and protected areasnetwork.

Regional strengths, challenges, opportunities and constraints: • Strengths:

(i) natural/cultural diversity and social-economic diversity; (ii) co-operation despite past/ongoing conflicts; (iii) great population and growth; (iv) growing private sector

• Challenges: (i) conservation/development conflict – especiallytourism; (ii) sources of finance; (iii) poverty; (iv) management capacity

• Opportunities: (i) international co-operation; (ii) management alliance and partnerships with communities; (iii) private sector partnership including tourism; (iv) information technology as an important tool; (v) existing regional co-operation (APFP, ASEAN)

• Constraints: (i) lack of funding; (ii) lack of political leadership and will; (iii) difficulties in cross-sector co-operation; (iv) technical support and scientific research at the sitelevel; (v) community awareness building; (vi) red tape/bureaucratic blockages.

2. Recommendations

To deal with the challenge of the conservation/development conflict – especially tourism:• The World Heritage Committee, through the tourism

programme adopted during its session in December2001, should undertake case studies to:(i) examine current and potential conflicts;(ii) propose partnership solutions for sustainable heritagetourism management;(iii) document heritage conservation strategies andfinancial support mechanisms for places where tourismis growing or expected to grow, such as Ha Long Bay,Vietnam, and World Heritage properties in China,Indonesia and Japan.

• UNESCO in the Asia-Pacific region should co-ordinate astrategic Workshop in 2004-5 to examine the case stud-ies involving states parties, site managers and the privatesector, especially regional eco-tourism operators. TheWorkshop should elaborate a programme outline forCommittee consideration in 2005 to guide sustainableheritage tourism management in the region.

115

Annex 5

To respond to the challenge of poverty alleviation inthe region:• Consistent with Article 5(a) of the World Heritage

Convention, States Parties encourage the Committee totake into account the potential impacts, both positiveand negative, of heritage conservation decisions on localcommunities.

• The Committee should develop, for consideration in2004, an action plan to:(i) ensure ongoing dialogue with international organisa-tions, donor bodies, NGOs and individual experts;(ii) discuss the potential role of cultural and naturalWorld Heritage in poverty alleviation projects; (iii) seek heritage conservation and management fund-ing opportunities and increase awareness of the place ofheritage in the social and economic lives of communities.

• As the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation ofthe World Heritage Convention continue to be revised,the Committee should consider an explicit clause toensure that, in making decisions on the conservation ofnatural and cultural World Heritage properties, it givesadequate and appropriate consideration to the potentialimpact of those decisions on the social and economiclivelihood of local and regional communities.

To respond to the challenge of resources for heritageconservation and management in the region:• Consistent with Article 17 of the World Heritage

Convention, and recognising the shared responsibilitiesof all mankind for protecting the natural and culturalWorld Heritage, States Parties encourage the WorldHeritage Centre and UNESCO to investigate and reportto the Committee on innovative mechanisms for theAsia-Pacific region, such as trust funds and partnershipswith a broad range of stakeholders, to achieve the sus-tainable financial management of World Heritage prop-erties, especially those on the List of World Heritage inDanger.

To respond to the challenge of imbalance in the rep-resentativity of the World Heritage List as it affectsthe Asia-Pacific Region:• The Committee should request UNESCO and the

Advisory Bodies to submit reports by 2005 on:(i) actions taken within the framework of the GlobalStrategy for a balanced and representative WorldHeritage List, to identify under-represented categories ofnatural and mixed World Heritage sites in the Asianregion, particularly in the Pacific Islands countries andCentral Asia;(ii) results of identification of potential trans-boundaryand cluster sites to protect the marine NH of the Pacific;(iii) results of the follow-up action to the Workshop onNatural and Mixed World Heritage Nominations inCentral Asia (Almaty, Kazakhstan, December 2002) forpotential trans-boundary and cluster World Heritagenominations.

To address the challenges of information sharing inthe region:• UNESCO and the World Heritage Centre should formally

review their operations in the region by 2005 to ensureservices are provided in a co-ordinated fashion to moreadequately assist the implementation of the WorldHeritage Convention by the Asia-Pacific States Parties.

• The States Parties affirmed the role and contribution ofthe Asia-Pacific Focal Point, hosted by Australia, in thecontext of the Memorandum of Understanding with theDirector-General of UNESCO. In reviewing the FocalPoint’s strategic operations and web site management,States Parties requested the Focal Point to consider:(i) seeking funding opportunities for direct exchangeprogrammes for World Heritage managers, particularlywith China, India and Japan;(ii) the establishment of an active information networkon its web site that will allow States Parties in the regionto share information on management planning andPeriodic Reporting;(iii) inviting States Parties to lodge electronic copies oftheir management plans for publication on the web site;(iv) the development of resources and training materialsto respond to the challenges of heritage tourism in theregion;(v) collaboration with New Zealand on issues affectingthe Pacific Island States Parties to the Convention.

The success of these five mechanisms should bespecifically addressed during the next round ofPeriodic Reporting for the Asia-Pacific Region.

116

Annex 5

117

Annex 5

Sub-regional recommendations for West-Central Asian Cultural Properties

These Recommendations were adopted by 6 West-Central Asian States Parties during the UNESCOConsultation Meeting of Asian States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to prepare the“Synthesis Periodic Report for Asian CulturalHeritage”, 13-15 March 2003, UNESCO HQ, Paris

II.2. Statement of Significance:

• World Heritage properties are being re-evaluated andexamined in a more comprehensive manner, beyondappreciation as “single monuments” but as importantcharacteristics forming a property located within a cultural and natural context and setting.

• In other words, cultural heritage properties are being re-evaluated and their World Heritage significance is beingredefined, taking into consideration the enhanced andadvanced understanding of heritage properties since thetime of inscription.

Status of Site Boundaries:• Core and buffer zone of the property are being redefined

based upon a comprehensive analysis and evaluation ofthe heritage values of the World Heritage properties andchanges which have occurred in the vicinity of the prop-erties since the time of inscription on the World HeritageList.

II.3. Statement of Authenticity/Integrity:

• The World Heritage values for which the properties wereoriginally inscribed on the World Heritage List have inprinciple, not changed.

• However, there have been some gradual changes, espe-cially in the urban World Heritage properties, whichmust be better monitored, controlled.

II.4 Administrative and Management Arrangements:

• Appropriate administrative and management arrange-ments backed by legal instruments are in place at thenational level.

• However, the actual implementation of such arrange-ments is sometimes weak, in particular, in urban areas,World Heritage properties have experienced change anddevelopment pressure.

• Enhanced co-operation among the relevant authoritiescould result in improvement to ensure non-violation ofconservation regulations.

• Additionally, local community awareness raising and par-ticipation should be increased to discourage violation ofconservation regulations.

Present State of Conservation: • A great amount of continuous high-quality conservation,

restoration and presentation work has been undertakenby the national authorities concerned, and generallyspeaking, the state of conservation of the five West-Central Asian World Heritage Cultural properties wasdeemed to be good.

• The recognition of properties as World Heritage hasplayed an important role in increasing the national com-mitment and allocation of funds to improving conserva-tion, presentation, and development activities on-site.However, common conservation challenges, which con-tinue to be faced in this sub-region are: (i) A rise in humidity caused by the high water-table level,and consequent efflorescence; (ii) continuous deterioration of unbaked earthen archi-tectural and archaeological heritage properties;(iii) insufficient management of urban development,insufficient co-ordination of relevant authorities,encroachment;(iv) the region’s legal provisions for heritage protectionare mostly new, and sufficient time is required to be ableto review and strengthen the existing provisions.However, it was already noted that harmonisation ofsome legal provisions at the national and local level isneeded.

Staffing and Training Needs:• The sub-region has a significant pool of conservation

experts who have tackled the above-listed conservationproblems.

• International and inter-regional co-operation with otherconservation institutions and universities has resulted ingradual capacity building of national experts. Some ofthe exchange of expertise and experience has provenuseful, while some experiences do not have potential foradaptive reapplication elsewhere.

• However, there is a need to increase this sharing of expe-riences, lessons learnt, and exchange of expertise toaddress the ever-growing conservation and manage-ment challenges. In particular, specific conservationproblems listed above should be discussed regularly atsub-regional or regional levels to maximise technicalknow-how on heritage conservation.

• It is important to note that language is an important fac-tor in this sub-region.

• Another important human capacity building need is tra-ditional building and maintenance craftsmanship, whichmust be revived and increased, accompanied by a creation or increase in the market for use of such craftsmanship.

Financial Situation:• The national and provincial budget allocations for pro-

tecting, conserving, managing and adequately develop-ing the World Heritage properties are helpful and

Section II

118

Annex 5

appreciated, but are far from sufficient to meet theneeds, as the region’s geo-political situation has lednational governments to prioritise national defenceabove heritage conservation and development. If theregion’s security is enhanced, it is hoped that nationalfunding could be channelled to heritage matters.International support from bilateral or multilateralarrangements has been mobilised for most of the fiveWorld Heritage properties reviewed in this sub-region,often in a catalytic manner, to assist the national author-ities in their work.

Access to IT:• Communication and access to IT varies between World

Heritage properties located in urban and rural areas.

Visitor Management:• In most World Heritage properties, tourism management

plans do not exist. In some cases, tourism developmentis included in a multi-year programme, but these pro-grammes are sometimes not fully implemented. There isa need for improved information provision to the generalpublic and tourists on the World Heritage properties,through improved communication technology.

II.5. Threats and Risks:

• Socio-economic development pressure results withencroachment in urban World Heritage properties.

• Air pollution destroys irreplaceable heritage, especiallystone monuments and decoration.

• Natural weathering destroys earthen architecture. • Rise in the water table causes humidity and efflores-

cence. • Previous inappropriate conservation interventions cause

new conservation problems.• Tourism pressure and inadequate visitor management

damages some World Heritage properties.

Counteractive Plans:• For each World Heritage property, the national authori-

ties have planned and are trying to implement conserva-tion programmes to counteract the threats and risksfacing the properties. Some measures have been imple-mented which have been successful, while others havenot yet been implemented.

II.6. Monitoring Arrangements:

• Each World Heritage property discussed has officersresponsible for monitoring the properties.

Monitoring Indicators:• Monitoring indicators were not discussed in detail.• Another important human capacity building need is tra-

ditional building and maintenance craftsmanship, whichmust be revived and increased, accompanied by a creation or increase in the market for use of such craftsmanship.

• Each World Heritage property discussed has officersresponsible for monitoring the properties.

II.7. Conclusions and Proposed Actions:

• Proposed actions, which should fully take into consider-ation the economic and financial realities of the sub-region and national governments, include the(i) establishment of a website, publications in various lan-guages, of conservation, management and presentationknow-how, guidelines, lessons learnt, and “best prac-tices” for each of the World Heritage properties in theregion.(ii) establishment of a regional centre for World Heritageconservation, which not only elaborates a mid-termstrategy and regional action plan for World Heritageconservation, but also guides the implementation ofsuch a strategy and plan, and regularly and systemati-cally organises training activities and reviews of theprogress made in the region.(iii) determining and concentrating on two or three areasof conservation and management issues at a time toensure that the limited human and financial resourcesare put to good and effective use, which leads to posi-tive and sustainable impact in the World Heritage con-servation field.

Sub-regional Recommendations for SouthAsian Cultural Properties

These Recommendations were adopted by 6 SouthAsian States Parties during the UNESCO ConsultationMeeting of Asian States Parties to the WorldHeritage Convention to prepare the “SynthesisPeriodic Report for Asian Cultural Heritage”, 13-15March 2003, UNESCO HQ, Paris


• World Heritage Centre should explore the possibility ofdefining or setting up parameters to describe the state-ments of significance.

Status of Site Boundaries:• World Heritage Centre should extend necessary assis-

tance in defining the boundaries of World Heritageproperties on a site-specific basis. Beyond the bufferzone, a support zone should be identified whereplanned support services should be encouraged with aview to reduce the impact of tourism on the WorldHeritage property.

II.3. Statement of Authenticity/Integrity:

• Authenticity is variable from site to site. Depending onthe research finding, it could be further enhanced.Authenticity of not only the tangible part but also theintangible part should be protected.

• There are various charters, guidelines, and manuals. Thesite managers have to be made aware of these docu-ments and their application in the conservation of theWorld Heritage property.

II.4. Administrative and Management Arrangements:

• World Heritage Centre should provide framework orguidelines to develop a site-specific management planfor core and buffer zones and indicate activities thatcould be allowed to enable the States Parties to providesite-specific indications/information.

Present State of Conservation:• It is recommended that the States Parties be encouraged

to develop a data bank on conservation of each site andthat World Heritage Centre monitor conservation of theWorld Heritage properties through a “periodical techni-cal audit”.

Staffing and Training Needs:• The group recommends that training programmes be

formulated and implemented to train the site managersand other relevant staff to make them understand theinternationally accepted conservation principles.

Financial Situation and Access to IT:• The World Heritage funding is essential for training, per-

sonnel (World Heritage sites), networking, GIS, researchand conservation laboratories, and training for fieldstaff.

Visitor Management:• The group recommends that the World Heritage Centre

lay down guidelines for site-specific and region-specificplans.

II.5. Threats and Risks:

• The group recommends that threats affecting the site beidentified, such as development pressure, environmentalpressure, and impact of tourism (on sites).

• The group further recommends that threats and risks ineach site and counter actions be formulated to addressthe threats and indicators set up.

• A mechanism should be put in place to monitor whetherthreats are increasing or decreasing in the buffer or corezone.

II.7. Conclusions and Proposed Actions:

• There is a need to maintain the authenticity of sites viaconstant monitoring.

• Periodical monitoring of conservation both in terms ofstructural conservation and conservation of environmentof World Heritage properties.

• Evaluate the impact of tourism on World Heritage properties

• Section II of the Questionnaire should be more specific.

119

Annex 5

Sub-regional Recommendations for South-East Asian Cultural Properties

These Recommendations were adopted by 8 South-East Asian States Parties during the UNESCOConsultation Meeting of Asian States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to prepare the“Synthesis Periodic Report for Asian CulturalHeritage”, 13-15 March 2003, UNESCO HQ, Paris


• There is a widespread need to review the Statement ofSignificance (SOS) for many sites in the SE Asian region,especially early inscriptions.

• It was proposed that States Parties prepare new SOSs,according to UNESCO guidelines, for submission toWorld Heritage Centre and inclusion in the global strat-egy review of Tentative Lists in consultation with ICO-MOS. This could be carried out through sub-regionalfollow-up meetings.

Boundaries: • As concerns the status of Buffer Zones, the extension of

the boundaries for sites could be carried out in a “leop-ard spots” scheme of identifying priority areas in the sur-rounding zones. These spots could be incorporated intothe protection of the core zone following research ontheir World Heritage authenticity/integrity value (i.e. theBorobudur model).

II.3. Authenticity and Integrity:

• Model forms for different heritage categories (industrial,monumental, archaeological, cultural landscapes, etc.)should be disseminated to provincial authorities (as inthe Thai regional office structure system) for incorpora-tion into national as well as regional Tentative Lists.

II.4. Management and state of conservation:

• For exemplary administrative arrangements, the circula-tion of good practice models of innovative managementplans (such as Luang Prabang and the Angkor APSARApublic-private partnership) should be disseminated toother countries in the region.

Training: • Inadequate staffing and training needs were referred to

by most participants and it was felt that initiatives suchas ’Asian Academy’ should be supported at the regionallevel. In this way, training could go beyond the ad hoclevel to continuous up-dating of professional skills.

• Possibilities to involve Australian, US and European uni-versities in internship schemes with culture ministries inSE Asian countries could be further explored.

Financial arrangements:• Feasibility studies for the establishment of different types

of financial Trust Funds would be helpful to set up sus-tainable financing arrangements.

• A crucial need in addressing the impact of urban devel-opment and infrastructure projects on historic citieswould be to identify (through inter-ministerial co-odina-tion) Official Development Assistance loans and grantswith an impact on cultural heritage conservation andprovide early advice (before the project is already under-way) on good practice.

Access to IT:• Particular needs were identified in the continual re-train-

ing in the use of new equipment such as GIS mappingtechniques and software.

Visitor Management:• A comparative regional study on the diversity and appro-

priateness of different types of ’tourist tax’ mechanismsshould be undertaken (this could be done in partnershipwith different universities in the region).

• The creation of “new itineraries” could help diffuse visi-tor pressure on certain key areas with concentratedzones of tourism.

II.5. Factors affecting the property:

• Studies on the “visual impact” of areas outside the corezone of World Heritage sites are needed.

• Different perceptions on the suitability of vegetation(fruit trees, etc.) in historic and monumental sites (i.e. VatPhou).

• Noise pollution of motorbikes and Karaoke bars.• Problems of migrant populations.• Preventive intelligence gathering on vandalism and theft.• There was a need to formalise emergency plans for fire,

pest outbreaks, and typhoons.

Monitoring:• Implementation of the systematic use of ’photographic

monitoring’ of monuments (with digital cameras wher-ever possible) and other features as a preventive tool todocument changes in sites.

• There was a desire to incorporate existing institutionswherever possible in the maintenance, monitoring,upkeep and promotion of sites (monks, assemblies ofelders and so on).

II.7. Conclusions and recommended actions:

• If possible, re-classify “in-danger” sites with significantimprovement as sites “in development” or “in evolution”.

• Examine the application of legislation for comprehensiveland use planning.

• Raise awareness of all institutions/stakeholders, includ-ing religious, secular as well as political decision-makers.

• Continuously up-date professional skills.• Develop communication of good practice at all levels:

local, national and international.

120

Annex 5

• Recognise the intangible heritage dimension of manytangible/physical structures (i.e. the revival of theRamayana dance in heritage spaces, and negative effectsof modification of house ownership in historic citieswhich influence community composition).

• Promote inter-ministerial co-odination in the task ofmanagement and monitoring which mitigates inappro-priate infrastructure development programmes.

Sub-regional Recommendations for North-East Asian Cultural Properties

These Recommendations were adopted by 5 North-East Asian States Parties during the UNESCOConsultation Meeting of Asian States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to prepare the“Synthesis Periodic Report for Asian CulturalHeritage”, 13-15 March 2003, UNESCO HQ, Paris


• Legal provisions should be made to better define theboundary and buffer zone of the property, as a mecha-nism for protecting authenticity and integrity.

II.4. Management:

Training needs:• There is an urgent need to reinforce the training for the

site managers especially concerning managementcapacity (including conservation technologies; moreemphasis on the traditional skills training).

• It is recommended that traditional building material sin-dustries and craftsmanship should be revived for the pro-tection of Cultural Heritage properties.

Financial situation:• It was recognised that funding support in general is

insufficient for States Parties to achieve their fundamen-tal roles in the protection and restoration of cultural her-itage. Mobilization of financial resources and technicalexpertise was crucial in supporting the national and localefforts to conserve and manage World Cultural Heritage.

• It was strongly recommended that revenue from tourismactivities be used for conservation purposes by the SiteManagement. It was noted as important that local commu-nities at the heritage site benefit from these tourism activities.

• Asian States Parties, all authorities concerned in the con-servation activities of World Cultural Heritage, UNESCO,its partners and the Advisory Bodies to the WorldHeritage Convention are urged to increase co-operationto mobilise financial resources and technical expertisebenefiting the conservation, management and develop-ment of World Cultural Heritage properties to obtainmaximum positive and sustainable benefits.

Visitor/Site management:• Redefine and develop the management plan integrating

major aspects, such as tourism planning, in consultationwith concerned stakeholders and communities. Specialawareness-building activities on World Heritage Conventionat the site level, in particular for ethnic groups.

• Develop best practice management guidelines for thesite management, e.g. management plans.

• Site and heritage interpretation should be emphasised atlocal level and guidelines developed.

II.5. Threats and risks:• Risks and pressures affecting the multiple properties

should be noted by the Committee.

121

Annex 5

Pan-Asian Recommendations for CulturalWorld Heritage Properties

These Recommendations were adopted by 25 AsianStates Parties during the UNESCO ConsultationMeeting of Asian States Parties to the WorldHeritage Convention to prepare the “SynthesisPeriodic Report for Asian Cultural Heritage”, 13-15March 2003, UNESCO HQ, Paris

Statement of Significance/Borders and BufferZones/Authenticity and Integrity:

• Statements of significance need to be examined and, inmany cases, revised in order to better explain the specificheritage value of a World Heritage property. This is espe-cially the case for properties where there has been recentresearch that has led to a better understanding of thesocial, cultural and historic significance of the site.

• Following the revision of the statement of significance,the borders of the property need to be re-examined andpossibly redefined based upon the heritage values of theproperty to ensure that the borders protect the entiretyof the site, including its core, buffer and support zones.

• Site management plans will have to be elaborated, orupdated, taking into consideration the re-examined andpossibly redefined zoning, to ensure that the manage-ment strategy adopted for each World Heritage propertyconserves its physical integrity, its historical authenticity,and the heritage values for which the property wasinscribed on the World Heritage List.

• The protection of the values of the World Heritage prop-erty’s environmental setting should also be integratedwithin the management scheme, as well as the supportservices, including those for tourism.

Proposed future actions:• National action, with advisory input upon request from

the UNESCO/WH Centre and the Advisory Bodies.

Timeframe: All World Heritage cultural properties in Asiainscribed prior to 1994 should be subjected to this process,which should be completed within 6 years and reportedon upon the next round of the Regional PeriodicReporting.

Information, Data and Knowledge Base for ImprovedDecision Making:

• Information (map, textual, photographic, scientific) onthe authenticity and state of conservation of a WorldHeritage property should be archived electronically andmade available to those responsible for site manage-ment. This includes all monitoring reports, data, andinformation on all conservation work undertaken.

• The World Heritage Centre should establish basic guide-lines for various site management tools and practices,which should not attempt to be exhaustive, but whichestablish the baselines which should not be overlooked

at any World Heritage property and which will permitcomparison between World Heritage properties. Someof the management tools and practices in need of thesebaselines are: (i) cultural impact assessments; (ii) objectives and use applications for buffer and supportzones; (iii) monitoring and regulating tourism carrying capacityof a World Heritage property; (iv) indicators to measure development pressure stress onWorld Heritage properties; (v) revenue collection, retention and investment in theWorld Heritage conservation process; (vi) involvement of local communities and traditionalcustodians in conservation and management of WorldHeritage properties.

• It was agreed that two specific site management tools are required to be developed at all World Heritage properties:

• Accurate, up to date, and complete maps. The most use-ful format for this is through the application of simpleGIS, which should conform to both national and WorldHeritage mapping standards.

• Detailed and complete inventories of all the moveableand immoveable cultural heritage assets of each WorldHeritage property.

Proposed future actions:• Site managers to initiate action with regard to inventories. • National heritage authorities (at various levels) to take

action with regard to archiving data. • World Heritage Centre and RACAP, together with

Advisory Bodies, to take action with regard to baselineframeworks.

Timeframe: Asian World Heritage National Focal Pointsshould report to World Heritage Centre within two yearson specific national or World Heritage property needs andprogress made in implementing the above actions. TheWorld Heritage Centre and the RACAP will elaborate aplan of action for establishing basic guidelines for sitemanagement tools and practices, to be discussed at aregional consultation meeting within two years.

Capacity Building and Training:

• Site managers require specific training in managementskills. Networks such as the Asian Academy should beactively utilised for upgrading management skills.

• On-site technical staff require training to update techni-cal skills, specially in areas of :(i) GIS and other IT; (ii) non-invasive and remote sensing techniques forresearch and documentation; (iii) scientific techniques for monitoring and conservationof heritage material. Particular attention needs to bepaid to the scientific application of traditional materialsand building conservation techniques, and especially tothe use of substitutes for cement (in all but recent build-ing where cement was used in the original construction.)

122

Annex 5

• Training of craftsmen should be given attention so thattraditional skills required for authentic conservation andmaintenance of a property are not lost but encouragedto continue. It will be necessary, in most cases, to providesubsidies or to identify new commercial opportunities forsuch traditional skill-holders so that they remain eco-nomically viable.

• Design competitions should be encouraged for newfacilities to be constructed at World Heritage properties(museums, visitor facilities, toilets, staff housing, officespace, signage, street and site furniture). Networks, suchas the Asian Academy and Forum UNESCO networks,may be mobilised for such purposes.

Proposed future actions:• Heritage management authorities should draw up a

schedule for staff training based upon a prioritisednational World Heritage capacity-building plan.

• States Parties should identify relevant training institu-tions in their countries and encourage them to join existing cultural heritage networks such as the AsianAcademy.

Timeframe: Immediate national level action.

Ensuring Local Benefits from the Development ofWorld Heritage Properties:

• Local retention of revenue and re-investment in heritageconservation and development of World Heritage prop-erties should be an explicit goal of management. Thestrategies to achieve this and their relative successshould be incorporated into the Periodic Reporting exer-cise in future years.

• Best practice models from various Asian World Heritagecultural properties should be documented and madegenerally available. A first group of examples can bedrawn from the case studies conducted under therecently completed 4-year UNESCO-WH Centre-NORADproject: Culture Heritage Management and Tourism:Asia-Pacific Models for Co-operation between Stakeholders.Examples of such strategies include gate receipts, taxes,trusts, and ODA.

Proposed future actions:• The World Heritage Centre and the Regional Advisor for

Culture in Asia and the Pacific (RACAP) should publiciseand disseminate best practice examples of sustainableheritage conservation and development models at AsianWorld Heritage cultural properties.

• National authorities should analyse existing revenue(both retention and re-investment) practices both at thenational and World Heritage property level.

Timeframe: Publication before the 28th session of theWorld Heritage Committee in 2004. Review and analysisof national and World Heritage property level revenue systems before the 29th session of the World HeritageCommittee in 2005.

Monitoring Indicators and Periodic Reporting:

• Specific World Heritage monitoring indicators need to beestablished by the World Heritage Centre and theAdvisory Bodies. In designing the indicators, time-boundanalysis should be integrated within the system, so thatmonitoring and Periodic Reporting can move from areactive exercise to a predictive and preventive (warning)tool.

• Sub-regional meetings of World Heritage site managersshould be convened to introduce and test the system ofmonitoring indicators and to assess its effectiveness.

Proposed future actions:• The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies

should develop a monitoring indicators system to betested at Asian World Heritage cultural properties.

Timeframe: The World Heritage Centre and the AdvisoryBodies elaborate a monitoring indicators system beforethe 28th session of the World Heritage Committee in2004. The World Heritage Centre, the Advisory Bodies andRACAP test the system after introducing it to Asian StatesParties between the 28th and 29th sessions of the WorldHeritage Committee.

123

Annex 5

Regional Recommendations on thePresentation of Section II Reports

These Conclusions and Recommendations wereadopted during the UNESCO “Regional Workshopfor Periodic Reporting of the Natural and MixedWorld Heritage Properties in Asia and the Pacific”,10-13 March 2002, Greater Blue Mountains WorldHeritage Area, Leura, Australia

Overall Comments

• Reports should be precise, concise and consistent.• Use URL’s where available.• Focus on important changes since listing.• The report should be meaningful and useful to the site

manager.• Use sub-headings where appropriate to clarify content

of report sections.• The World Heritage Centre Questionnaire is particularly

helpful for this section.• Request the World Heritage Committee to provide refer-

ence documents and guidelines especially those thathave been influential in expanding the categories.

• Note that site managers in some States Parties do nothave access to computers.

• Request the World Heritage Centre to assist in makingthe bibliographic material accessible to site managers.

• Highlight key achievements and identify key factors thathave affected management performance positively ornegatively.

Legislation• Relevant international conventions/agreements and

national legislation should be covered in Section I ratherthan Section II.

• Refer only to legislation relevant to the protection ofWorld Heritage property (need for major Act, then listreferences to related Acts).

Management Arrangements• Need to recognise that management arrangements can

range from statutory to informal (e.g. legal, contractual,traditional and collaborative).

• Report should consider actions taken and their effective-ness in meeting World Heritage obligations for identifi-cation, protection, conservation, rehabilitation andpresentation of the natural and/or cultural heritage.

• Examples could include management actions sinceinscription to maintain/enhance a habitat; species pro-tection; important tenure changes; education, aware-ness and interpretation; capacity building; relevantmanagement strategies and plans (and extent of imple-mentation); collaborative partnerships; and key researchknowledge.

• Consider response to findings and recommendations ofevaluations and reactive monitoring reports.

• Identify major gaps and needs in management capabilityto address management of a World Heritage property.

• Identify potential for gaps to be targeted by national/international assistance (e.g. information technology).

• Identify co-ordination and consultation that hasoccurred, with stakeholders and communities, for thedevelopment of management plans.

Recommendations• Need for reference documents/benchmarks for manage-

ment plans.• Need to develop best practice management guidelines,

e.g. management plans.

II.5. Factors affecting the property

• Report on important risks and pressures impacting on aWorld Heritage property.

• Refer to explanatory note 2.5 and the ICCROM publica-tion entitled ’Risk Preparedness’.

• Focus on high risk factors affecting World Heritage val-ues and integrity/authenticity, and consider the follow-ing factors: (i) External/internal; (ii) Current/potential/immediacy and scale of the risk; (iii) Cumulative/non-cumulative; (iv) Natural/human-induced; (v) Ability for state party to effectively manage the riskand mitigate the pressures.

• Need to comment on impacts (e.g. visitor impacts ratherthan just visitor numbers).

II.6. Monitoring

• Identify major gaps and needs in management capabilityto address monitoring of World Heritage property.

• Focus report on: (i) monitoring and measuring, relating to the state ofconservation of the property; (ii) important factors affecting the property; (iii) important changes and trends.

• Identify opportunities or requirements for improvingmonitoring. Note the importance of baseline and otherreference data for monitoring.

• Identify indicators that will be monitored, noting rele-vant national templates and protocols.

• Stress the development of a monitoring methodology,such as the collaborative monitoring model.

• Difficulty of funding for monitoring purposes.

Recommendations on the Format of the Report

• Consideration to be given to moving II.5 (FactorsAffecting the Property) to precede II.4 (Management).

• The World Heritage Committee should review theapproaches used for the current Periodic Report in orderto revise instructions for the next Periodic Report in2008.

124

Annex 5

Requests to the World Heritage Committee

• Guidance is required on how to report loss or degrada-tion of authenticity and/or integrity.

• There is a need for Guidelines to manage “acceptablechange” noting Article 6, sub sections 2 and 3 of theWorld Heritage Convention and specific guidelines fromrelevant national legislation and guidelines complemen-tary to Article 6.

125

Annex 5

ACCU Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO

ADB Asian Development Bank

APFP Asia Pacific Focal Point

approx. Approximately

APSARA Autorité pour la Protection du Site d’Angkoret sur l’Aménagement de la Région d’Angkor(Authority for the Protection and Management of Angkor and the Region of Siem Reap)

ASEAN Association of South-East Asian Nations

ASEF Asia Europe Foundation

ASI Archaeological Survey of India

ASP Associated Schools Programme

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CCF Central Cultural Fund

CCTV China Central Television

CH Cultural Heritage

CI Conservation International

CRATerre Centre Régional d’Architecture en Terre

Dept. Department

DHR Darjeeling Himalayan Railway

DHSA Digital Heritage Support Actions

Div. of CH Division of Cultural Heritage

DPR Korea Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

EC TACIS European Community TACIS AssistanceProgramme for Eastern Europe and Central Asia

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ENVIS Environmental Information System

EU European Union

FFI Fauna and Flora International

FSM Federated States of Micronesia

GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Protection Authority

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEF Global Environment Facility

GIS Geographical Information System

GPS Global Positioning System

HQ Headquarters

IA International Assistance

ICCROM International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property

ICHO Iranian Cultural Heritage Organization

ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites

INTAS International Association for the promotion of East-West Scientific Cooperation

INTERPOL International Police Organization

IRF International Rhino Federation

ISO International Standards Organization

IT Information Technology

IUCN World Conservation Union

JBIC Japan Bank for International Cooperation

JFIT Japanese Funds in Trust

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

KMTNC King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation

MAB Man and the Biosphere Programme

MZ Monument Zone

NABU Naturschutzbund Deutschland (German Federation for Nature Conservation)

NCCA National Council for Culture and the Arts

NFUAJ National Federation of UNESCO Associations in Japan

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NH Natural Heritage

NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation

NP National Park

NPWS National Parks and Wildlife Services

NTF National Trust for Fiji

ODA Official Development Assistance

OECF Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund for Japan

PIC Pacific Island Countries

PIMA Pacific Islands Museum Association

RARE RARE Centre for Tropical Conservation

126

Annex 6

List of acronyms

SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation

SOS Statement of significance

SPACH Society for the Preservation of Afghanistan’s Cultural Heritage

SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Programme

TL Tentative List

UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNF United Nations Fund

UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Convention Cultural Objects, 1995

WCPA World Commission on Protected Areas

WEFCOM Western Forest Complex

WFP World Food Programme

WH World Heritage

WHA World Heritage Area

WHF World Heritage Fund

WMF World Monuments Fund

WWF World Wide Fund for the Conservation of Nature

127

Annex 6

0

World Heritage 2papers Investing in World Heritage: Past Achievements, Future Ambitions(In English) December 2002

World Heritage manuals Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites: a Practical Manual for World Heritage Site Managers(In English) November 2002

World Heritage 3reportsPeriodic Report AfricaRapport périodique Afrique(In English and French) April 2003

World Heritage 4papersProceedings of the World Heritage Marine Biodiversity Workshop, Hanoi, Viet Nam, February 25–March 1, 2002(In English) May 2003

World Heritage 5papers Identification and Documentation of Modern Heritage(In English with two papers in French) June 2003

World Heritage 6papers World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992-2002(In English) July 2004

World Heritage 7papersCultural Landscapes: the Challenges of Conservation Proceedings from the Ferrara workshop, November 2002(In English with conclusions and recommendations in French) August 2004

World Heritage 8papersMobilizing Young People for World HeritageProceedings from the Treviso workshop, November 2002Mobiliser les jeunes pour le patrimoine mondialRapport de l’atelier de Trévise, novembre 2002(In English and French) September 2003

World Heritage 9papersPartnerships for World Heritage Cities - Culture as a Vector for Sustainable Urban DevelopmentProceedings from the Urbino workshop, November 2002(In English and French) August 2004

World Heritage papersMonitoring World HeritageProceedings from the Vicenza workshop, November 2002(In English) September 2004

World Heritage reportsPeriodic Report and Regional Programme - Arab States 2000-2003Rapports périodiques et programme régional - Etats Arabes 2000-2003(In English and French) June 2004

Published within the World Heritage Papers Series

World HeritageThe State of World Heritage in the Asia-Pacific Region - 2003(In English) November 20042reports

For more information contact:UNESCO World Heritage Centre


12

The

Stat

e of

Wor

ld H

erit

age

in t

he A

sia-

Paci

fic R

egio

n 20

03

Cov

er p

rint

ed o

n ch

lori

ne f

ree

pape

r;in

teri

or p

rint

ed o

n re

cycl

ed p

aper

Des

ign

by R

ecto

Vers

o

2

Cov

er p

hoto

:Mou

ntai

n R

esoa

l and

its

tem

ples

,Yan

yu T

ower

(R

esoa

l,C

hina

) ©

UN

ESC

O.

World Heritage reports


World Her i tage reports

Wo

rld

Heri

tag

epa

pers

WH_AsiaPacific12_cover 18/11/04 14:03 Page 1

Documents

World Heritage reports 12whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_12_en.pdfPublished in 2004 by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre with financial contribution from the Japan Funds-in-Trust