the regional seminar for cis countries - unesco€¦ · proceedings of the regional seminar for cis...
TRANSCRIPT
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
2
УДК 502.8:001.83(063)
ББК 79.001
Упо 67
Proceedings of the Regional Seminar for CIS countries
“Safeguarding World Heritage in the Context of New Global Challenges”
1-3 March 2011, Moscow, Russian Federation
Editors Yury Vedenin, Heritage Institute, Moscow, Russia
Tamara Semenova, Heritage Institute, Moscow, Russia
Consultative support UNESCO Office in Moscow for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova and the
Russian Federation
Translation of the seminar materials: Aleinikov P.A.,Ananichev K.K., Kulikov S.V.
Maksakovsky N.V., Provorova I.V., Semenova T.Yu., Sokolsky S.A.
Published in electronic version in 2011
Copyright © Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage named after Dmitry
Likhachev, 2011
Regional Seminar for CIS countries has been organized with the support of the UNESCO
Office in Moscow for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova and the
Russian Federation All the ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the individual authors. The
authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this book and
for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not
commit the Organization.
All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted, in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the publishers:
Heritage Institute 2 Kosmonavtov street, Moscow 129366 Russia
Telephone : +7 495 6861319
Fax : +7 495 6861324
Email: [email protected]
http://www.heritage-institute.ru
ISBN 978-5-86443-173-3
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
3
Contents
Brief Information 4
Programme Committee 5
Organizing Committee 6
Concept 7
Program 10
Expert Papers 17
Conclusion 70
Recommendations 76
Press Release 79
List of Participants 80
Acknowledgements 85
Attachment 1. Questionnaire 86
Attachment 2. Presentations by Participants
Attachment 3. Photos
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
4
Brief Information
Event
The Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev
is organizing with the support of the UNESCO Moscow Office and in partnership with the
Russian Federation Ministry of Culture, the Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding
World Heritage in the Context of New Global Challenges» to be held with participation of
national and international experts in Moscow on March 1-3, 2011.
Participants
60-70 participants from the CIS member states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of
Moldova, the Russian Federation and the Ukraine) – representatives of relevant ministries and
agencies, research and public organizations, the World Heritage Sites, national and international
experts in the sphere of cultural and natural heritage preservation.
Working languages
Russian and English
Overall theme
Multidisciplinary research for safeguarding and management of World Heritage Sites in the
context of new global challenges (such as climate change, uncontrolled urbanization and tourism
pressure)
Objectives
1. Data assessment on the World Heritage Sites preservation in the CIS countries
2. Identification of priorities and resources for foresight activities in the sphere of World
Heritage Sites management and enhancement
3. Promotion of cultural landscape as a key heritage site and its role in the sustainable
development in the East European region
4. Promotion of regional exchange of good practices in heritage preservation
5. Networking for best practices introduction and broader regional cooperation
Expected outcomes
1. Comparative assessment of the World Heritage Sites preservation in the CIS countries
2. Replication of the successful management models
3. Scientific and information support for the regional cooperation network on heritage and
cultural landscape preservation
4. Institutional capacity building for regional cooperation.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
5
Programme Committee
BUSYGIN
Andrey Evgenievich
Chairman
Deputy Minister, Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation
VEDENIN
Yury Aleksandrovich
Deputy Chairman
Director, Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural
Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev
BADARCH
Dendev
IVLIEV
Grigory Petrovich
ORDZHONIKIDZE
Geogry Eduardovich
Director, UNESCO Office in Moscow, UNESCO Representative
in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova and the
Russian Federation
Member of the RF State Duma,
Chairman, State Duma Committee for Culture
General Secretary, The Commission of the Russian Federation for
UNESCO
KOLOSSOV
Vladimir
Aleksandrovich
Vice-President, International Geographic Union
NERONOV
Valery Mikhailovich
Vice-President, International Coordination Council for UNESCO
―Man and the Biosphere‖ Program
TRUBOCHKIN
Dmitry Vladimirovich
Director, Institute of Art Science under Ministry of Culture of the
Russian Federation
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
6
Organizing Committee
VEDENIN
Yury
Aleksandrovich
TSVETNOV
Vladimir Anatol‘evich
KOLESNIKOVA Lyudmila
Petrovna
Chairman
Director, Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural
Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev
Deputy Chair
Deputy Director, Department for Cultural Heritage and Arts,
RF Ministry of Culture
Deputy Chair
Director General, The Moscow State Integrated Art and
Historical, Architectural and Natural Museum-Reserve
EREMEEV
Aleksandr
Vladimirovich
MAKSAKOVSKY
Nikolai Vladimirovich
Deputy Director, Russian Research Institute for Cultural and
Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev
Head, Department of Unique Historical and Natural Sites,
Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage
named after Dmitry Likhachev
SEMENOVA
Tamara
Yurievna
Executive Secretary
Senior Researcher, Russian Research Institute for Cultural and
Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev
MOREVA
Liubava Mikhailovna
Consultative Support
Programme Specialist for Culture, UNESCO Office in Moscow
for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Republic of Moldova and the
Russian Federation
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
7
Concept Paper
Background Information
Despite the modern global crisis, economic situation in Russia is improving giving way
to more stable policies in the sphere of cultural development and nature conservation. However,
these sectors of economy in Russia and other CIS countries still lag behind the other branches
and receive significantly less attention. But crisis is exactly the turning point for reconsideration
of the cultural and natural heritage values and their role in the country‘s national and regional
sustainable development.
The preservation of World Heritage Sites is vital for the improvement of the national
management system based on the comprehensive approach towards the preservation of the
spatial cultural and natural heritage objects.
In this context, regional workshops and expert meetings are effective tools for exchange
of information and focused discussion of the existing problems, including cultural and natural
heritage management in the region with the similar economic and political structures and
processes. The rich technical, professional and social expertise that comes from the inter-state
organizations such as UNESCO, is highly important for developing new recommendations on
management of World Heritage Sites, including re-assessment of impacts from the global
climate change, urbanization process, and tourism development.
Agenda
The seminar agenda is developed in line with the UNESCO‘s strategic objectives for
strengthening the contribution of culture to sustainable development, it promotes an intercultural
dialogue for better mutual understanding and appreciation within the UNESCO Plan of Action
for the celebration of 2010 as the International Year for the Rapprochement of Cultures.
Countries of the CIS, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova, and the
Russian Federation have a significant period of co-existence and common history, and share
comparable values, therefore they are able to cooperatively discuss the national heritage issues
and propose effective measures for subsequent improvement actions in the region.
Goal
The main goal of the seminar is to strengthen the regional scientific and informational
potential for the implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (adopted in 1972),
for better management of the World Heritage Sites and foresight activities against new global
challenges.
Thematic Justification
It is known that increase of the industrial effluents into the atmosphere, in particular, if
accompanied by rapid deforestation (of both tropical and boreal forests) leads to the so-called
‗greenhouse‘ effect and atmosphere warming. As a result of the changing weather and climate
conditions the glaciers are to melt and the level of the World Ocean rises. These phenomena
create a real threat to many regions to be flooded, in particular the low relief territories (coastal
areas). Among the other objects, the natural heritage sites and historical monuments might be
seriously threatened. These are World Heritage Sites in Western Europe, located in the low-level
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
8
areas of the Great Britain, the Netherlands, Germany etc. There are also cities of Venice and St.
Petersburg directly dependent on the sea levels.
Another important global change is uncontrolled urbanization – the sprawling of the
modern cities, subsequent conglomeration of the heritage sites by the new housing constructions,
and destruction of the centennial historical centres and urban landscapes. According to some
estimations, almost half of the existing World Heritage Sites are monuments and heritage sites
located in the urban environment or in the very historical centres, thus every second site
inscribed to the World Heritage List is threatened by the negative impacts of the urbanized
environment. One of the examples of the emerging threats in the traditional urban landscape is so
called ‗vertical pollution‘ in the form of modern skyscraper construction – this is the case of
Okhta Centre project development in St-Petersburg.
Due to highly expanded tourist migrations (this is non-debatable tendency in the last
decades) today there is a real threat to various World Heritage Sites. On one hand, these are the
historic districts in the most visited ancient towns (primarily in the Europe), suffering from the
visitors‘ overload. On the other hand, those are the most popular nature reserves (such as safari
parks in the South East Asia and Africa), where in some locations vegetation cover severely
degrades and wild animals suffer from the permanent stress. Excessive tourist pressure in the
heritage sites is highly profitable, but naturally it requires a remedy in the form of specific
approaches and various combinations of the organizational, prohibitive, planning, educational
and other measures.
These problems are most visible in the spatial sites with cultural and natural heritage,
including cultural and historic urban landscapes.
Actions Proposed
For mitigation of the negative impacts it is important to optimize the heritage
management system, including legal, administrative, financial, social, technical and other
measures to ensure
- quality preservation of the World Heritage Sites;
- their rational (sustainable) use;
- permanent comprehensive monitoring of their state;
- effective protection of the natural and cultural properties served as a basis for World
Heritage nomination;
- consideration of the environmental and cultural landscape conditions, as well as
raising awareness on the spatial heritage sites to ensure the integrated natural and
cultural values preservation.
The main focus is on the foresight activities, supported by the continuous monitoring,
forecast of the optional scenarios, tentative loss of the outstanding universal value or unique
properties of the World Heritage Sites, as well as other proactive measures. For institutional
capacity building on these issues there is planned an interactive session with the participation of
the World Heritage Center experts. This session will share experiences between the countries in
the research of the global challenges and their impact upon the heritage preservation.
It would be important to discuss also the degree, direction and mode of human traditions
to evolve while protecting the historic environment. In this context ‗living heritage‘ shall be
incorporated into protective legislation, thus enabling intangible values to be taken into
account, while the cultural landscape concept will facilitate the coordination of the tangible and
intangible heritage preservation and use.
Under the conceptual development a questionnaire has been elaborated for preparation of
the seminar participants. It is mounted in the Internet for collecting responses from the staff
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
9
members of the region‘s World Heritage Sites and representatives of the CIS countries.
Integrated into a summary document, it will be used for identifying experts for comments,
participation in the interactive session and contributions for the seminar recommendations.
Seminar Expected Outcomes
The seminar will contribute to the elaboration of the comprehensive documentation,
including recommendations on the World Heritage properties more effectively protected against
new global challenges and threats. Governing bodies will be supplied with these documents and
recommendations for the subsequent reactions on heritage management and further
implementation in the national system of the heritage protection. All seminar materials and
research expert presentations will be published in Russian and English at the Heritage Institute
web-site (www.heritage-institute.ru). In this way, there would be established a common Internet
resource for communication and information exchange and strengthening cooperation in the East
European region.
Further actions for cooperation and institutional capacity building, including education
and training are to be planned. This will ensure sound scientific and technical support to the
regional World Heritage initiatives, elaboration of the joint programs and projects, counseling
and professional training of the staff members of the World Heritage Sites.
Regional seminar for CIS countries with the participation of the international experts will
enhance the communication and exchange of the scientific information to improve the heritage
preservation at the regional level.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
10
Programme
Tuesday March 1, 2011
Venue Heritage Institute, 2 Kosmonavtov st.
9.00-10.00 Registration of the participants
I. Opening Remarks
Chair Mr Yury VEDENIN, Director, Heritage Institute, Moscow, Russia
10.00-10.30
Welcoming Speeches
Mr Andrey Busygin, Deputy Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation, the
Chair of the Programme Committee
Mr Dendev Badarch, Director of the UNESCO Office in Moscow, UNESCO
Representative in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Republic of Moldova and the
Russian Federation
Mr Grigory Ivliev, Chair of the RF State Duma Committee on Cultural Affairs
Mr Grigory Ordzhonikidze, Secretary General, The Commission of the
Russian Federation for UNESCO
II. New Global Challenges and their Impact on the World Heritage Sites
Co-chairing
Mr Vladimir KOLOSSOV, Vice-President, International Geographical Union, Russia
Mr Georghe POSTICA, Vice-Minister, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Moldova
Key expert presentations 30 min including discussion
11.00-11.30 Cultural Policy and Legislation in the Heritage Sphere
Mr Grigory Ivliev, Chair of the RF State Duma Committee on Cultural Affairs,
Moscow, Russia
11.30-12.00 Heritage Preservation and Sustainable Tourism Development in the
Context of Global Challenges: UNESCO Strategies and Programs
Mr Herve Barre, Program Specialist in Sustainable Tourism, UNESCO World
Heritage Center, Paris, France
12.00-12.30 Coffee/tea
12.30-13.00 Urbanization and Heritage Preservation
Mr Vladimir Krogius, Deputy Director, Institute for Historical Cities
Reconstruction, Moscow, Russia
13.00-13.30 Climate Change and Heritage Preservation
Mr Arkady Tishkov, Deputy Director, Institute of Geography, Russian
Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
11
13.30-14.30 Lunch
III. Cultural Landscape as a Heritage Site
Co-chairing
Mr Alexander DROZDOV, Leading Researcher, Institute of Geography, Russian Academy of
Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Ms Pavlina MISIKOVA, National Coordinator, Ministry of Environment, Bratislava, Slovakia
Key expert presentations 30 min including discussion
14.30-15.00 Global Transformations of Rural Cultural Landscape – Main Drivers and
Management Challenges
Mr Jorgen Primdahl, Professor, Copenhagen University, Denmark
Mr Simon Swaffield, Professor, Lincoln University, New Zealand
15.00-15.30 Cultural Identity and Terraphilia
Mr Zoran Roca, Professor, Lusofona University, Lisbon, Portugal
Mrs Maria De Nazar Oliveira Roca, Professor, Nova University, Portugal
15.30-16.30 Opening Ceremony of the Exhibition ―Solovki – The Miracle of the Russian
North‖
16.30-17.00 European Landscape Convention as a Support to Cultural Landscape
Management – Slovakia Case Study
Ms Pavlina Misikova, National Coordinator of the European Landscape
Convention, Ministry of Environment, Bratislava, Slovakia
17.00-17.30 Role of Museum-reserves in the Cultural Landscape Preservation
Mr Vladimir Gritsenko, Director, Kulikovo Battlefield Museum-Reserve,
Russia
17.30-18.00 Cultural Landscapes in the World Heritage List
Ms Marina Kuleshova, Chief, Cultural Landscape Management Department,
Heritage Institute, Moscow
18.00–19.00 Performance of ―Saucejas‖ Folk Music Group, Latvia
19.00–21.30 Dinner for Seminar Participants
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
12
Wednesday March 2, 2011 Venue Heritage Institute, 2 Kosmonavtov st.
IV. Practical Issues of the World Heritage Site Management and Monitoring
Co-chairing
Mr. Igor MAKOVETSKY, President, Russian National Committee for World Heritage,
Moscow, Russia
Mr. Igor CHARNYAUSKI, Head, Department of Historical and Cultural Heritage
Management, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Belarus, Minsk
Key expert presentations 30 min including discussion
Presentations by participants 15 min
9.30-10.00 Contemporary Problems of the World Heritage Sites Preservation in
Russia
Mr Nikolai Maksakovsky, Chief, Department of Unique Historic and Natural
Areas, Heritage Institute, Moscow, Russia
10.00-11.30 Presentations by the CIS Country Representatives
Azerbaijan Icherisheher – Living History. Balanced Conservation and Development
Mr.Anar A.Guliyev, Head, Scientific Researching and International Relations
Department, Administration of State Historical-Architectural Reserve
―Icherisheher‖ under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Azerbaijan
Cultural and Historic Heritage of the Gobustan Reserve and its Protection
in the Context of New Global Challenges
Mr Fazil Mammadov, Senior Consultant, Planning, Restoration and
Assessment Division of the Cultural Heritage Department of the Ministry of
Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Azerbaijan
Armenia
Historic and Cultural Museum-Reserves as the Guarantors of Effective
Management, Preservation, Utilization and Enhancement of the Cultural
Heritage
Mr Vladimir Pogosyan, Acting Director, Agency for Historical Environment
Protection and Historical and Cultural Museum-Reserves of the Ministry of
Culture of the Republic of Armenia
Legal and Regulatory Framework and Practice of the Historic and
Cultural Heritage Protection in the Republic of Armenia
Mr Armenak Sargsyan, Chief, Department of Cultural Heritage and
Traditional Crafts of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Armenia
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
13
10.00-11.30 Presentations by the CIS Country Representatives
Belarus
Legal Issues and Regulation of the World Heritage Sites Management in
the Republic of Belarus
Mr Igor Charnyauski, Head, Department on Historic and Cultural Heritage
Management and Restoration, Ministry of Culture
Revitalization or „New Life‟ of the World Heritage Sites in Belarus
Ms Alla Stashkevich, Head, Department for Historic and Cultural Heritage
Management, Institute for Culture
11:30 -12.00 Coffee/tea
12.00-13.30
Presentations by the CIS Country Representatives
Republic of Moldova
Preservation of the Cultural Heritage in the Republic of Moldova:
Contemporary Problems
Mr Sergius Ciocanu, Chief, Department of Cultural Heritage, Ministry of
Culture of the Republic of Moldova
Orheiul Vechi Cultural and Natural Reserve: Problems of Management
and World Heritage Nomination
Mr Georghe Postica, Vice-Minister, Ministry of Culture of the Republic of
Moldova
Ukraine
Concept of Preservation of the World Heritage Sites in the Kyev City
Master Plan
Ms Elena Serdyuk, Director, Research Institute for Monument Preservation,
Kyev
Problems and Perspectives of Catacomb Complex Preservation and Use in
the Keyv-Pechery Monastery
Mr Timur Bobrovsky, Deputy Director, Research Institute for Monument
Preservation, Kyev
Russian Federation
Landscape Management Plan in the Contemporary Museum-reserve
Development (Case Study of the Kizhi World Heritage Site)
Ms Tatiana Nezvitskaya, Deputy Director, Department on Historic and
Natural Heritage Preservation, Kizhi Historic, Architectural and Ethnographic
Museum-reserve, Petrozavodsk
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
14
On Specific Areas Protection – Sacred Sites Preservation (Case Study of
Solovetsky Archipelago)
Mr Vyacheslav Stolyarov, Aide to Vicar for Heritage Preservation, Saviour
Transfiguration Solovetsky Monastery, Moscow
13.30-14.30 Lunch
V. Discussion on Major Problems of World Heritage Site Management and
Optional Solutions
Moderators
Mr Vladimir KALUTSKOV, Leading Researcher, Department of Physical Geography and
Landscape Science, Moscow State University, Russia
Ms Marina KULESHOVA, Chief, Department of Cultural Landscape Management, Heritage
Institute, Moscow, Russia
Presentations by participants 15 min including discussion
14.30-16.30 Russian World Heritage Sites Preservation Issues
Mr Alexey Butorin, President, Natural Heritage Protection Fund, Moscow
Altaisky Biosphere Reserve and the Teletskoe Lake: Preservation and
Development, Status and Trends of Management of the World Heritage
Site
Mr Igor Kalmykov, Director, Altaisky State Natural Biosphere Reserve,
Gorno-Altaisk
Some Problems of Management Plan Elaboration (Kizhi Pogost Case
Study)
Mr Alexander Lyubimtsev, Chief Guardian of the Immobile Monuments,
Kizhi Historic, Architectural and Ethnographic Museum-reserve, Petrozavodsk
Interests of Russian Ecotourists
Mr Alexander Drozdov, Leading Researcher, Institute of Geography, Moscow
16.30-17.00 Coffee/tea
17.00-18.00 Discussion Summary Proposals to the Seminar Recommendations
19.00 -21.00
Cultural Program for Seminar Participants
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
15
Thursday March 3, 2011 Venue The Moscow State Integrated Art and Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape
Museum-Reserve ―Kolomenskoye‖. 39 Prospekt Yu.V. Andropova
VI. Comprehensive Study Visit to the World Heritage Site (Impact Assessment
Case Study)
Co-Chairing
Ms. Lyudmila KOLESNIKOVA, Director General, The Moscow State Integrated Art and
Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve, Moscow
Ms. Marina GROMOVA, Director General, National Kyev-Pechery Historical and Cultural
Reserve, Kyev, Ukraine
Key expert presentations 30 min including discussion
Presentations by participants 15 min
10.30-11.00
11.00-11.30
11.30-12.30
Management Problems of the „Kolomenskoe‟ World Heritage Site and
Integrated Approach to their Comprehensive Resolution
Ms Lyudmila Kolesnikova, Director General, The Moscow State Integrated
Art and Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve,
Russia
Contemporary Legal and Operational Activities for Improving
Management of the World Heritage Site – Kyev: Saint Sofia Cathedral,
Kyev-Pechery Monastery and its Surroundings
Ms Marina Gromova, Director General, National Kyev-Pechery Historical
and Cultural Reserve, Kyev, Ukraine
The Museum in a Historic and Cultural Landscape of the World Heritage
Site
Mr Sergey Klimov, Director, National Historic and Cultural Nesvizh Reserve,
Belarus
Inventorying and Documenting Historic and Cultural Heritage in the
Republic of Armenia
Mr Hakob Simonyan, Director, Scientific Research Centre of Historical and
Cultural Heritage of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Armenia
Impact of Tourism Development on the Heritage Sites
Mr Pavel Shulgin, Deputy Director on Research, Heritage Institute, Moscow
12.30-13.00 Coffee/Tea
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
16
VII. Conclusion on Management of the Heritage Sites in the Context of Global
Challenges
Co-charing
Mr Pavel SHULGIN, Deputy Director, Heritage Institute, Moscow, Russia
Ms. Tatiana NEZVITSKAYA, Deputy Director, Kizhi Museum Reserve, Petrozavodsk,
Russia
Interventions by participants 5 min
13.00-14.30
Summary and Plan for the Foresight Activities in the Management
Comments and Proposals by Seminar Participants
Adoption of the Seminar Recommendations
14.30-16.00 Specific Problems of the WHS Management and Optional Solutions
Field Excursion in the Kolomenskoe Museum-Reserve
Visiting sites
Tsar‘s Yard (Gosudarev Dvor), Church of Ascension, Natural Monuments,
House of Peter the Great, Museum of Wooden Architecture, Proviant Yard
(Sytny Dvor)
16.00-16:30 Farewell Reception
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
17
Expert Papers
Herve Barre
Heritage Preservation and Sustainable Tourism Development in the Context of Global
Challenges: UNESCO Strategies and Programs 18
Grigory Ivliev
Cultural Policy and Legislation in the Heritage Sphere 25
Vladimir Krogius
Urbanization and Heritage Preservation 29
Marina Kuleshova
Cultural Landscapes in the World Heritage List 38
Jorgen Primdahl, Simon Swaffield
Global Transformations of Rural Cultural Landscape – Main Drivers and
Management Challenges 46
Zoran Roca, Maria de Nazar Oliveira Roca
Cultural Identity and Terraphilia 58
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
18
Heritage Preservation and Sustainable Development
of Tourism in the Context of Global Challenges:
UNESCO Strategies and Programmes
Hervé Barré
UNESCO World Heritage Centre, France
Mr Deputy Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation,
Mr. Chairman of the Russian Federation State Duma Committee on Cultural Affairs
Mr Director of the Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage,
Excellences,
Participants and organizers,
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is a great pleasure for me to be here in Moscow to represent UNESCO and the World
Heritage Centre at this Regional Seminar to address this distinguished gathering of CIS countries
World Heritage Site managers, public authorities and experts in heritage preservation on the
timely and pertinent theme of ―Safeguarding World Heritage in the Context of New Global
Challenges‖.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks on behalf of UNESCO and Mr. Francesco
Bandarin, UNESCO‘s Assistant Director General for Culture and Director of the World Heritage
Centre to the Organizing Committee of this seminar and the Russian Research Institute for
Cultural and Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev for hosting this meeting.
As the World Heritage Convention approaches universal ratification (185 States Parties
on a total of 193 UNESCO Member States), the 911 properties inscribed on the List are facing
new emerging challenges among which tourism is one of the most pressing, both as a threat and
as an opportunity. This new challenge is at the heart of the reflection on the Future of the
Convention and its relationship with sustainable development.
In my presentation, I will briefly recall the goals of the 1972 Convention and examine the
major challenges that tourism poses on the heritage properties. I will then expose the World
Heritage Strategy and programmes that respond to the challenges of tourism in relation to the
heritage preservation.
The World Heritage List today includes 911 properties inscribed, with 704 cultural, 180
natural and 27 mixed properties; 151 State parties have inscribed sites, for a total of 185 States
that have ratified the Convention.
The World Heritage Convention(1)
• An agreement, a legal instrument that imposes binding legal commitments that set out the
duties of States Parties and UNESCO – World Heritage Centre in implementing the
Convention.
• Each State Party to the Convention ―recognizes the duty of ensuring the identification,
protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the
cultural and natural heritage‖ (Article 4 of the Convention).
The World Heritage Convention(2)
• Its central objective is to preserve the Outstanding Universal Value of properties. This
refers to their ―integrity‖, authenticity‖ and ―sense of place‖.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
19
• Each State Party shall endeavor ―to adopt a general policy which aims to give cultural
and natural heritage a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection
of that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes‖ (Article 5 of the Convention).
I would like to recall that this Convention conveys the idea of a collective responsibility for
heritage preservation, and is founded on the premise that certain places on Earth are of
Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and therefore, form part of the common heritage of
humanity, its ―public good‖.
Two main missions: potentially conflicting
• Preserving the integrity and authenticity of the properties – OUV;
• Providing access to the largest public:
- for its understanding of the value of these sites and to share its values as a human
experience
- for social, cultural and economic development through tourism.
Tourism, when inappropriately managed, represents a threat resulting from human
activity like building and development, infrastructures, pollution, as opposed to climate change,
natural events, and disasters that do not depend on human decisions. Tourism policies result
from human conception and decision. This is why we can mitigate the threats from tourism
through improved management capacities coupled with political will.
The state of tourism in terms of flux is arithmetically implacable:
Tourism: an opportunity and a threat(1)
• International tourist arrivals doubled between 1990 and 2009 reaching 880 million
visitors – 4 billion domestic tourists;
• The share in international tourist arrivals in emerging and developing countries increased
from 32% in 1990 to 47% in 2009;
• Gross worldwide tourism receipts increased from 1998 to 2008 to 7% and 12% for the
Least Developed Countries.
Tourism: an opportunity and a threat (2)
• There were more than one billion international arrivals in 2008 and an average yearly
increase of 4%;
• Annual average increase of 1.14% of the total world population;
• Cultural tourism: + 15%; eco-tourism + 10%;
• 2008: 1 billion visitors; 2050: 1.6 billion visitors.
The question is that the number of sites that one can visit do not significantly increase or very
slowly and that most of sites (Venice, Machu Picchu, Taj Mahal…) have limited or no
possibility of expanding the visiting area.
International tourism is mostly concentrated in urban areas that offer easy accessibility,
accommodation, or area accessible by plane or road. But we know that many World Heritage
Sites insufficiently accessible or promoted do not receive enough tourists, but this is another
debate.
Do we have the right instrument to cope with the dramatic increase in numbers of tourists?
• Machu Picchu: The number of visitors increased two-fold between 2000 and 2008 to
860 000 visitors per year;
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
20
• Angkor: The number of visitors increased from 7 600 in 1993 to 1 million in 2008;
• According to the Periodic Report for Europe 2005 – 2006: ―World Heritage sites in
Europe are predominantly used for visitor attraction‖.
Main challenges of heritage preservation and tourism:
• Impact on heritage values of cultural and natural heritage: pressures related to the
volumes of tourists and to infrastructures – not respecting the core zone, inappropriate
presence of shops – commoditization of heritage;
• Impact on societies, local communities and intangible heritage: if not properly managed
tourism can damage the existence of these societies/indigenous populations, their
lifestyles, value systems, traditions and beliefs;
• Impact on the economic value and tourist attractiveness, potential for future development.
This last point is important as many emerging and developing countries still dispose of
well-preserved heritage that represents a strong potential for development, job creations and
revenue generation that could be jeopardized by ‗quick return benefits‘ and or tourism policies
that damage and spoil the destinations in the short-term. According to a survey by the global
Heritage Fund, the degradation of 200 important sites could cost developing countries more than
$100 Billion in lost revenues.
Even if tourism does not belong to the perimeter of the Convention stricto sensu, it is
clear that tourism directly impacts World Heritage. The states parties have launched ten years
ago the WH Sustainable Tourism Programme (first phase in 2001), a reflection on the
relationship between World Heritage, sustainable development and sustainable tourism in order
to elaborate responses to the challenges of tourism.
Based on the past experience of pilot projects implemented by UNESCO, WHC including
field Offices – and the Moscow office in particular, very dynamic and inventive – and within the
World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Programme, often in cooperation with the UNWTO and
UNEP, it is possible to draw a picture of what is the strategy to meet the challenges of tourism.
World Heritage response to the challenge of tourism: the strategy
• ―The objective is to ensure an appropriate and equitable balance between conservation,
sustainability and development, including tourism, so that World Heritage properties can
be protected through appropriate activities contributing to the social and economic
development and the quality of life of the communities‖ (World Heritage and sustainable
development, Paraty, Brazil, March 2010);
• Proposing best practice policy guidelines for managing tourism compatible with the
Convention‘s rules;
• Proposing guidance for elaborating tourism management plans;
• Considering tourism as a full component of the World Heritage; integrate tourism in
management plans;
• Considering tourism as a tool for heritage preservation, promotion, dialogue between
cultures and civilizations and development;
• Making the tourism industry an ally in heritage protection to achieve the Convention‘s
goals;
• Developing ownership among resident populations for involving them and having them
benefit tourism;
• Raising awareness of World Heritage among the tourism industry and tourists to develop
responsible behavior at sites;
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
21
• Developing education, training and capacity building to prepare appropriate management
plans;
• Developing research activities on
- the financing of heritage preservation by the tourism industry and the tourists, the
‗main users‘ of heritage
- the economic value of heritage;
• Developing large partnerships: tourism industry, UN Agencies, States Parties, resident
communities.
Lessons learned from workshops, case studies, field experience
UNESCO – WHC added value and lessons learned
Sustainable development of tourism means preserving heritage as a touristic/economic resource
for the long-term;
• Include Convention‘s principles in tourism policies and projects;
• Develop collaborative and participatory processes with resident populations to
- conceive the strategy and plan to ―empower‖ them on a long-term basis and
- give them the ―ownership‖ of the activities (sustainability of the tourism activity);
• Avoid the ―shelf syndrome‖ - too many management plans never implemented.
Experience acquired from capacity building workshops on management plans and field
projects were very useful to identify what is needed or not by the site managing teams,
specifically with regard to ―principles‖, ―policy guidance‖. The lists of ―what to do‖ for
managing heritage may be useful, but what the site managers want are responses to questions of
‗how to do‘, in terms of ‗operational guidelines‘ taking place between general principles and
operational tools.
UNESCO – WHC added value
There is no ‗one best practice policy‘ but many situations and contexts based on technical
proficiencies, the local and national creativity, historical and traditional knowledge and
existence;
• Tourism planning defines a vision for tourism and other public use development and
management;
• Principles of ‗value based management‘ and ‗limit of acceptable change‘.
Actions and programmes on heritage and tourism concern not only World Heritage but
all forms of heritage, including landscapes and intangible heritage. The World Heritage
Committee has expressed that the scope of management increasingly encompasses all forms of
heritage, with World Heritage Sites being the ‗core‘ of a cultural and natural system to be
protected and enhanced for tourism purposes.
The Committee also has expressed the wish for a better cooperation between the different
UNESCO Conventions, in particular the 2003 Convention on the Safeguarding of Intangible
Heritage, and the 2005 Convention on the Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions.
Actions and Programmes:
• World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Programme;
• Standard-setting instrument on heritage preservation and sustainable development of
tourism;
• Global Partnership for Sustainable Tourism;
• UNESCO Field projects;
• Millennium Development Goals ―culture and development‖ projects.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
22
The World Heritage Committee, at its 34th
session in Brasilia, in July 2010 adopted a
Decision by which it ―decides to conclude the World Heritage Tourism Programme (first phase)
and requests the World Heritage Centre to convene a new and inclusive Programme on World
Heritage and Sustainable Tourism‖. Included in the annex of the Decision is a document of
recommendations that proposes Policy orientations on the relationship between World Heritage
and tourism that can be considered a first step for the new Tourism Programme.
World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Programme (1)
• Recommendations from international workshops – 2007/2009: ―Policy orientations‖ on
the relationship between WH and tourism, annexed to Decision 34 COM 5F.2 World
Heritage Committee 34th session, Brasilia, July 2010.
• ―The responses of World Heritage to Tourism‖ on management include:
- work closely with the tourism sector;
- include local communities in the planning and management of all aspects of
properties;
- be informed of the experiences of tourists to the visitation of the property;
- improve the prevention and management of tourism threats and impacts;
- base planning on the OUV protection of the property.
World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Programme (2)
Responsibilities of the World Heritage Convention are to
• Set frameworks and policy approaches;
• Confirm that properties have adequate mechanisms to address tourism before they are
inscribed on the World Heritage List;
• Monitor the impact of tourism activities upon OUV through indicators for state of
conservation reporting;
• Cooperate with other international organizations;
• Assist States Parties at sites to access support and advice on good practices.
The second annex to the mentioned Decision of the Brasilia Committee proposes
programme elements for the new Tourism Programme:
World Heritage Sustainable Tourism Programme (3)
• By the same Decision, the WHC requests the World Heritage Centre to convene a new
and inclusive tourism programme, to outline the objectives and approaches and establish
a steering group composed of interested States Parties and WHC.
• Programme elements of the new tourism programme include:
- Adoption and dissemination of standards and principles relating to sustainable tourism at
World Heritage Sites;
- Support for the incorporation of appropriate tourism management into the workings of
the Convention;
- Strategic support for the development of training and guidance materials for national
policy agencies and site managers;
- Provision of advice on the cost-benefit impact of World Heritage inscription and WH
branding.
A UNESCO recommendation on tourism is a new and innovative initiative that will fill a
gap among existing recommendations and conventions on heritage preservation. It will also
complete the many existing international (including at UN and UNWTO level) and regional
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
23
resolutions that are either economy centered, fail to mention both cultural and natural heritage, or
only serve as indicative charters or codes of conduct.
A UNESCO recommendation on heritage and tourism:
• WH Committee – 34th session, Brasilia – ―invites the Director General of UNESCO to
consider the feasibility of a recommendation on heritage preservation and sustainable
development of tourism‖;
• Consultative process includes UNWTO, UNEP, ICOMOS, IUCN, ICCROM etc.;
• Preliminary study on the technical and legal aspects relating to the desirability of a
standard-setting instrument accompanied by a proposal for a recommendation to be
presented to the Executive Board (May 2010) and General Conference (October 2010).
Recommendation on heritage and tourism: Rationale
• To propose policy guidelines under the form of an international recommendation adopted
by 193 States to appropriately regulate the issues in question;
• To encompass all forms of heritage: natural heritage, tangible and intangible cultural
heritage, cultural objects;
• When the recommendation is adopted, the General Conference will invite Member States
to take steps towards applying the norms included in the recommendation in national and
local laws;
• No appropriate international instrument currently exists to assist member States meet the
pressing challenges that tourism poses on heritage preservation;
• Priority given to heritage preservation on tourism development – impact studies,
management plans.
Other programmes and initiatives: Global Partnership
• The Global Partnership on Sustainable Tourism is a coalition of States, UN Agencies,
international business and non-governmental organizations on the initiative of UNEP in
cooperation with UNWTO and UNESCO;
• The objective of the Partnership is to build synergies and partnerships worldwide for
ensuring the long-term economic viability of tourism through the implementation of
projects;
• Focus on promoting policy framework, facilitating climate change adaptation, promoting
sustainable tourism as a means for poverty alleviation, facilitating the promotion of
cultural and natural heritage to make sustainability a part of finance and investment.
UNESCO Field Projects:
- ―Promoting Roads of Culture and Tourism in Armenia for Sustainable Development and
Dialogue‖;
- Promote sustainable tourism at World Heritage sites in Armenia with a view to
contributing to the economic and social development of local communities and their
active participation in conservation and management of sites. Link between the 1972 and
2003 Conventions;
- ―Mobilizing Cultural, Touristic and Educational Resources for Local Sustainable
Development in the Sheki Region, Azerbaijan‖;
- Enhance the conservation, appropriation and sustainable use of heritage; diversify the
region‘s economic base; promote heritage tourism, visibility of Sheki Region and
Azerbaijan at international level.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
24
Millennium Development Goal ―culture and development‖ projects:
• 18 projects on the ―culture for development‖ theme – including World Heritage – for the
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations;
• Implemented by the UN teams in cooperation with national and local authorities on 3 to 4
years with a budget of 3 to 8 million US $;
• Harnessing culture (intangible and tangible heritage, cultural industries, handicraft, and
museums) for development ―understood not simply in terms of economic growth, but
also as a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual
life‖.
Other programmes and initiatives: Examples of titles of MDG projects
• ―Creative Industries Support Programme‖, Cambodia;
• ―The China Culture and Development Framework‖, China;
• ―Development of Cultural Diversity to reduce poverty and promote social inclusion‖,
Ecuador;
• ―The Dahshur World Heritage site Mobilization for Cultural Heritage for Community
Development‖, Egypt;
• ―Harnessing Diversity for Sustainable Development and Social Change‖, Ethiopia;
• ―Creativity and Cultural Identity for local development‖, Honduras;
• ―Sustainable cultural tourism in Namibia‖, Namibia;
• ―Culture and Development in the occupied Palestinian Territory‖;
• Alliance for Cultural Tourism in Eastern Anatolia‖, Turkey;
Other programmes and initiatives: UNESCO/UNITWIN network
• A world wide-system of cooperation between 22 universities in the field of ‗culture,
tourism and development‘ from Argentina, Australia, Cambodia, Canada, Egypt,
England, France, Hungary, Gabon, Israel, Morocco, Palestine, Panama, Russia, Spain,
Italy, Gabon, Tunisia et al.;
• Sharing educational experiences, producing and providing education modules and tolls
on sustainable development of tourism in particular. Preparing a module at the masters
level on ‗tourism management at World Heritage sites‘;
• Meetings and seminars: Paris (2005), Gréoux les Bains, France (2006), Rimini, Italy
(2007), Quebec, Canada (2010).
Thank you for your attention.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
25
Cultural Policy and Legislation
in the Heritage Sphere
Grigory Ivliev Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Culture, Russian Federation
Preservation of the cultural heritage sites is one of the vital tasks facing modern state and
society.
In the Russian Federation legal protection of the cultural heritage by state is one of the
priority tasks for the federal governmental bodies, regional authorities and local municipal self-
government.
The declaration that the cultural heritage sites (monuments of history and culture) of the
peoples of the Russian Federation represent an outstanding universal value for the entire multi-
national population of Russia and comprise the inalienable part of the World cultural heritage is
set in the preamble of the Federal Law adopted on 25 June 2002 #73-ФЗ ―On objects of cultural
heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation‖.
Russia embodies colossal cultural heritage. At present the state protection is extended
over 90,000 monuments of history and culture, one-fourth of them (23,397) has the status of
national (federal level) monuments, and 15 unique cultural objects are inscribed in the UNESCO
World Heritage List.
Russia‘s cultural heritage is great and diverse but highly vulnerable. Thus, according to
the statistical data available, only 10-15 % of cultural heritage properties are in fair state of
protection, while almost 70% of the total number of cultural heritage monuments and sites need
urgent assistance measures to prevent their destruction, and it is as many as 150-200 objects that
are lost every year1. Therefore we are to bend every effort to provide the satisfactory level of
preservation for cultural heritage in Russia, including improving protection by the relevant
legislation.
It is worth to consider that the year of 2011, announced as the Year of Historic and
Cultural Heritage in the CIS countries2, was marked by the important event in the cultural life of
the country: on February 23, 2011 there was adopted the Federal Law #19-ФЗ ‖On incorporation
of the amendments in the Federal Law ―On museum fund and museums in the Russian
Federation‖. This law has set regulation on the legal establishment of the museum-reserves - the
unique institutions of culture protecting the outstanding historic and cultural heritage sites. With
the adoption of this Federal Law the activities of the museum-reserves and museum-estates (no
less than 140 sites can be counted today in Russia) have obtained the legal status.
The improvement of the fundamental sectoral Federal Law #73-ФЗ ―On objects of
cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation‖
(inacted on 25 June 2002) is in progress as well.
The Draft of the Federal Law ―On incorporation of the amendments in the Federal Law
#73-ФЗ ―On objects of cultural heritage (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the
Russian Federation‖ has been approved on March 17, 2011 in the first reading by the State
1 Data as per 27 May 2009 from the information source in Russian: Spravka k zasedaniyu kollegii
Ministerstva kultury Rossiiskoi Federatsii ―On urgent problems of the restoration in the Russian
Federation today‖ 2 Recommendations by the Chamber of Historic and Cultural Heritage and Modern Art under the Forum
of Creative and Academic Intelligentsia of the CIS Countries
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
26
Duma. Development of this draft stems from the need to improve and harmonize provisions of
the above-mentioned law.
The Draft Law includes the following statutory provisions and amendments:
- there are set liabilities (charges) for the preservation of the monument of history
and culture and stipulation of access of citizens to all cultural heritage sites, and
any type of legal transaction therewith (according to current legislation these
charges were stipulated only in case of privatization, gratuitous use or lease of the
property);
- there is ensured a transfer of the liabilities (charges) to any new owner or user of the
property by entry of these liabilities (public duties) in the Uniform State Register of
the Immovable Property and National Land Cadastre;
- there is introduced the unconditional obligation to register the contract with the
owner on stipulation of the effective liabilities (charges).
In addition to the current law the draft law is provisioning the following acts:
- privatization of the cultural heritage property solely on the competition basis (by
tender or auction);
- recognition (assumption) of any transaction lacking contract on stipulation of the
effective liabilities (charges) in relation to the cultural heritage site, null and void;
- regulation on right to alienation of the property for compensation in case of failure
to conform with the liabilities (charges) stipulated for this specific property.
The draft law fixes the rules of access rights granted to the citizens in relation to the
cultural heritage sites, established by the authorized agency for protection of cultural heritage
sites (in respect to the houses and private quarters, the rules of access are negotiated and agreed
upon between the property owner and the relevant agencies).
However, it is to be emphasized that the main objective in the elaboration of this draft
law was the introduction of the special provisions that appeal to owners of the cultural heritage
monuments and sites to make investments into their preservation (taking into consideration the
major deficit of the state budget allocated for solution of this problem), as well as regulation on
subsequent important liabilities and commitments for users or owners of the properties.
It should be mentioned that Federal Law #73-ФЗ of 25 June 2002 provides both
individual and collective legal owner or user of the national (federal) cultural heritage the right to
get compensation of the investments and restoration works on the basis of the Contract of the
gratuitous use of the monument or site.
However, in the current legislation on the cultural heritage this compensation norm is the
only one to motivate the bona fide owners and users of the cultural heritage to make investments
into its conservation. In fact, these are precisely the stimulation and remuneration measures that
shall be introduced and expanded in the legislation of the Russian Federation.
In this particular way some innovative norms are to be introduced to the Tax Code of the
Russian Federation by the amendments in the Federal Law #73-ФЗ to regulate reimbursement of
the tax payments (charges) to the tax payer in the following aggregate compensation:
- actual expenditures on the cultural heritage acquisition at the territory of the Russian
Federation, including interest for loans and credits received from the credit or the other
financial organizations of the Russian Federation specifically for the acquisition of the
cultural heritage monument or site;
- total expenditures on the works for restoration or conservation of the cultural heritage
monument or site;
- total expenditures on collecting information data on the cultural heritage monument or
site into the National Land Cadastre and on registration of the property rights in the
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
27
Uniform State Register of the Immovable Property (real estate status and transactions
therewith);
- expenditures on providing access of citizens to the cultural heritage monument or site
according to the national (federal) legislation of the Russian Federation. This provision is
very important as it ensures the compensation of the nuisances to organize an access to
the private house or office, including the private land area where the state archeological
property is located, as this access is the non-conditioned requirement according to the
legislation.
The abovementioned norms specify the detailed list of documents necessary for the bona
fide owners or users to exercise all the relevant legal rights and liabilities.
The modifications into the Tax Code of the Russian Federation specify and depict the
tax-exempt works at the cultural heritage monuments and sites including the archaeological field
works previously unjustly excluded from the tax-exempt activities in the Tax Code of the
Russian Federation. The abovementioned tax exemption is also suggested for activities aimed at
conservation of the registered cultural heritage properties.
In addition, the amendments to be introduced into the Federal Law ―On privatization of the
state and municipal property‖ guarantee deduction of the expenses necessary for restoration and
rehabilitation from the estimated cost of the cultural heritage property under privatization.
Observation of the solutions of the similar problems in the foreign countries confirms that
provisions stated by the draft law for stimulating owners or users of the cultural heritage,
correspond to the accepted legal regulation in Western Europe and America and the tendency to
search the incentives for raising awareness of the owners of cultural monuments and heritage
sites for their better protection and conservation.
Preparation for the second reading of the Draft Federal Law is performed by the RF State
Duma Committee on Culture in cooperation with the representatives of the Ministry of Culture,
National Agency for Heritage Preservation (RosOkhranKultura), National Agency for Land
Cadastre (RosKadastr), Ministry of Finances and other authorities of the national, regional and
local level, research institutions, public organizations and other stakeholders in the heritage
preservation. Substantial modifications and improvements were made in the text of the draft law,
including as follows:
- comprehensive concept on ‗territory of the cultural heritage site‘ was re-introduced into
the Law, its legal definition, as well as regulation on it‘s spatial delimitation,
differentiated regime of land use and heritage protection within its borders coordinated
with the Building Code of the Russian Federation and legislation on cultural heritage
protection;
- state protection measures and conservation of the archaeological heritage sites were
considered and stipulated;
- common national body recommended to be established for the cultural heritage
protection, control and management;
- special regulation is proposed to establish an executive power body under the regional
authority to take responsibilities for protection, use, enhancement and promotion of the
monuments of history and culture. The criteria for establishment of such special regional
body include either presence in the region of the outstanding cultural heritage site,
inscribed in the World Heritage List or National List of most valuable objects, or
registration over 100 monuments of cultural heritage at the territory of this region;
- state control for maintenance, preservation, use and state protection of the cultural
heritage is assigned to the federal body for protection of cultural heritage and is executed
via the functional regional bodies;
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
28
- norms that duplicate currently adopted regulations issued by the Government of the
Russian Federation and the national (federal) protection bodies are removed from the
Law, these norms refer to protection zones development and establishment around the
cultural heritage sites and the historic and cultural assessment procedures;
- procedure of historic and cultural assessment under the state jurisdiction is re-introduced;
- regulation on the Uniform State Register of the cultural heritage properties was reviewed
and amended according to the Statute therein, approved by the Decree of the Government
of the Russian Federation;
- specification of the conservation measures and activities for cultural heritage preservation
was re-introduced into the legislation; the notion on ‗activities for utilization of the
cultural heritage monument or site‘ was clearly defined;
- rules of optional public discussions of the professional historic and cultural assessment
were removed;
- regulation on protection under the state jurisdiction referring to specific cultural heritage
properties - such as ―dostoprimechatelnoe mesto‖ (heritage site), monumental art objects,
landscape architecture and park and garden art, cemeteries and single tombs, blocks of
houses and apartments is introduced;
- rules are proposed for introduction in the Building Code of the Russian Federation
referring to construction and infrastructure development within the borders of historic
settlements, in the buffer and protection zones of cultural heritage sites, within the
heritage site borders in coordination with the legislation on the cultural heritage
protection;
- draft law provisions for amendments introduced into Tax Code of the Russian Federation
referring to tax preferences for restoration and conservation activities at the monuments
of history and culture, acquisition of the cultural heritage monuments or sites, collection
of the information data for registration in the relevant governmental registers;
- new article introduced for amendment in the Federal Law ―On National Land and
Property Cadastre‖ referring to the obligation to register data and description of the
borders of the cultural heritage sites and limitations of the real estate use within the
territory of the cultural heritage site;
- transitional articles introduced for establishment of the protection status of the newly
identified cultural heritage sites.
Draft law was aiming at amendments in the Federal Law of August 8, 2001 #128-ФЗ ―On
licensing specific types of activities‖ introducing the obligation to license both restoration works
and cultural heritage protection activities, as the latter activity is still non-licensed. As a result of
this substantial work of the Committee on Culture under the RF State Duma the necessary
amendments on licensing the cultural heritage protection activity was introduced and adopted in
the Federal Law ―On licensing specific types of activities‖ in its first reading on October 8, 2010.
These provisions will exert the state control of any activity and works at the monuments of
history and culture.
We believe that amendments introduced by the draft law into various legal acts of the
Russian Federation will contribute to improvement of cultural heritage preservation and legal
protection in Russia. This draft law particularly refers to the civic activities in relation to the
cultural heritage as a special type of asset, and encouragement of extra-budget funding due to
introduction of the economic incentives for owners or users of the cultural heritage properties to
stimulate their better conservation and protection.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
29
Urbanization and Heritage Preservation
Vladimir Krogius Institute for Historical Cities Reconstruction, Russian Federation
Today, on the turn of the centuries, it is commonly recognized that the current drastic
environmental, technological and social processes turned into challenges endangering the entire
humankind. Those challenges are intimately interconnected and have become global. Notable
among those has been uncontrolled urbanization, in other words, change in the continuous
urbanization process of spontaneous nature.
It appears that urbanization is to be understood in broad terms. It is not only about
spontaneity understood literally, but rather absolute lack of control of the process concerned,
migration of refugees from starvation, natural disasters and hostilities, unauthorized construction
by the poorest citizens, although there too one could see some vestiges of management – tribal
customs, control by criminal groups, direct armed violence, etc. But still the countries
represented at this seminar face some expanded notion of spontaneity as some evil, and,
occasionally, corrupted management by the processes of urban regulation, lack of integrated
approach, sequence of activities, spontaneity or bias (unaccountable in terms of normal logics) in
the selection of the factors responsible for the managerial solutions by the respective authorized
bodies.
In the meantime, urbanization in any form continues throughout the world. In fact, when
we as members of the World Commission URBAN-21 took part in the elaboration of the World
Report on the Urban Future 21 (World Report…2000), the latter stated that the current century
will be the age of cities‘ network globalization throughout the world when the majority of the
world population lives in cities, and the number of cities with one million or more people will
exceed 350 by 2015 (which as we can see is almost the case). Attention was called to the fact
that continuous uncontrolled growth of urban population in the majority of the world is
hazardous. Along with that the great potential of the urban environment to involve new citizens
in productive activities was noted if the proper conditions are created via adequate measures of
the ―good governance‖ for sustainable urban development.
For our seminar it is essential that the Berlin Declaration on the Urban Future, adopted on
the basis of the above report in 2000, among a large number of recommendations on the most
urgent activities to respond to the challenges of uncontrolled urbanization states that «the cities
are to preserve their historical heritage, striving to become beautiful sites where art, culture,
architecture and landscape bring joy and inspiration to the citizens». The above statement, which
is regarded as one of the most important and urgent, has been made despite the most serious and
urgent problems faced by a number of cities: the poverty of the majority of the population,
deterioration of the social condition, environmental problems, propagation of diseases, inter-
ethnic and inter-confessional conflicts, seems very instructive and encouraging.
It was recognized that «no city throughout the world is free from problems and is truly
sustainable».
Let us supply some examples from the British experience of urban construction and
preservation of heritage, where the above two trends were combined for the first time in the
world. Let me quote London where modern cultural heritage conservation began as early as the
end of the 19th
century and four World Heritage Sites (Tower, Westminster, Greenwich and
Kew) have been established. It would seem that identification, preservation and management of
the historical urban environment there could receive the greatest attention, and this environment
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
30
itself, its traditional outlook should be universally respected. Along with that, the statement of
the outstanding British researcher of heritage Prof. Gerald Dix on the new tall buildings in
central London «indiscriminately scattered around like baggage on a railway platform,
dominating not only historic buildings but also whole districts that gave London its particular
character» has become widely known, and that was said long before the Foster «Cucumber», was
erected. The latter was jarred with the famous panoramas, including the Tower panorama from
the Thames side. Paradoxically, Dix quotes as a positive contrast to the London practice the
experience of Rome and Saint-Petersburg that retained their historical spirit with banning for
many years of all tall buildings. But the above view refers to the mid-1990s., when the
«magnificence» of the urbanization was not yet so brightly manifested in Saint-Petersburg.
A more recent example is Liverpool, which was included in the World Heritage List in
2004 as a «Maritime Mercantile City», which is a typical example of search for true values in
«historical urban landscapes» and the «site‘s spirit». Nevertheless, this site included some
particular areas – six places, or «components» with a common area of 136 ha; in this case a
considerable buffer zone was set aside (751 ha), extending up throughout the city area up to
characteristic observation points and to the middle reaches of the Mersey River whence a
beautiful panorama of the middle reaches of the Liverpool shore front can be seen. The problem
of the conservation of the «outstanding universal value» of that site started virtually upon its
inclusion in the List. The city authorities initiated development of several projects for erecting
several new tall and stylistically diverging buildings in areas being reconstructed within site
boundaries. That gave rise to active discussions and caused sending to Liverpool of the
UNESCO and ICOMOS inspecting Mission in October 2006. This Mission‘s recommendations
provided a basis for the development of a Supplemental Document for planning, which revealed
and classified the visual links of various sites and established some particular requirements for
their preservation. The above document was approved by the city authorities in 2009 but to what
extent it would be able to conserve the unique image of Liverpool as viewed from the river and
the nature of distant panoramas on the World Heritage Site is so far very dubious. In fact, the
construction of «debatable» buildings intruding into the very center of the World Heritage Site is
to be completed in 2011-2012. Then, their effect on the image of the sites could actually be
assessed. Clearly, Liverpool became one of the most characteristic examples of conflicting
trends in the conservation and development of World Heritage Sites, i.e., in big cities where it
was difficult to attain the desirable and UNESCO prescribed equilibrium between them due to
their social and economic significance and the desire to develop on the basis of investments.
In what way are those problems manifested, and these concepts may be operative in those
CIS countries whose representatives take part in the present seminar, and generally in the
countries existing in the former USSR territory in its part belonging to the region of Europe and
North America according to the UN and UNESCO classification? In this case, we have to take
into account some very specific features characteristic of urbanization in that territory. The
above mentioned World Report on the Urban Future distinguished three sets of world cities
different from one another in terms of particular stage of urbanization. Those sets comprised:
1 – cities with uncontrolled super-growth (i.e., with uncontrolled «spontaneous urbanization» in
its first meaning); 2 – cities with a dynamic development (that managed in some way to master
«uncontrolled urbanization», although the process of urbanization there continued at a slower
rate); and 3 – cities mature and weakening, facing population ageing. For each of those sets some
particular recommendations of mastering the situation were proposed, including improvement of
life and environmental conditions.
According to our tentative assessment, which hopefully will be specified by the
participants of our seminar, the process of uncontrolled super-growth of urban population in
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
31
combination with increasing poverty in the area under consideration is almost no longer in
evidence, if don‘t consider the uncontrolled strive of provincial regions‘ citizens to move to the
capitals of the respective countries. It appears that in a number of cities (let them be specified by
the colleagues) they are currently mastering the methods of management, ensuring dynamic
development with a continuous growth of population and preservation of a rigid limit of
insufficient financial resources‘ spending, which still cannot be regarded as increasing poverty.
However, it should be admitted that numerous cities of the region under consideration
demographically clearly belong to the third above-mentioned group of mature and weakening
cities with ageing population. In this case, one faces a sad paradox to the effect that the above
mentioned Report refers to this group of cities of the so-called «developed countries» whose
objective developmental problems are essentially mitigated or even removed owing to sufficient
funds. Those cities are ageing but according to the Report are «mature» and rich. They are in the
countries, where there is GDP per citizen more than USD $ 20,000 but as a rule - about $ 40,000
per year and where the index of the development of human potential according to the UN
classification is very high.
A number of our cities demographically belong to the third group, and in terms of the
poverty, to the first. We believe that there is the fourth set of cities – those that are still poor but
already ageing. That concept was considered with sympathy by the World Commission
developing the Report on the Urban Future in the 21st century, but it was not adopted due to the
fact that there are comparatively few such cities in the world. Presumably, the majority of the
Report‘s authors did not want to reject the elegant tripartite design of the Report, introducing
into it some «mutants» - cities that are to become richer with maturity and age but still remaining
poor. Our unique phenomenon, which can be accounted for attempt of accelerated construction
of socialism and «socialist reconstruction of the cities», was not duly assessed and accounted for
by researchers and regulators of the world urbanization process.
It became known to us at an early stage that the task of the investigation of the above
phenomenon is a kind of mutation in the development of the world city building and responses to
the challenges in that part of the world should be the taken care of our scientists – urban
planners, geographers, sociologists, etc. Hopefully, such studies are carried on and some
responses to the challenges of the 21st century will be found.
It is time we turned to the possible effect of the global challenge of spontaneous (or may
be not so spontaneous?) urbanization on the cultural and natural heritage preservation, and,
primarily those heritage sites of our countries that were included due to their outstanding
universal values in the World Heritage List and what management can and should promote better
conservation of that unique heritage.
According to our tentative assessment of potential threats for the conservation of cultural
and natural heritage are such challenges of urbanization as sub-urbanization, where the areas of
urban development are expanded and natural landscapes are destroyed; trans-regional migration
resultant in ethnic and professional minorities and «new» enforced multi-culture, income
differentiation of the population with a trend of forming new elite vs. ghetto regions;
establishment of a large number of huge multifunctional commercial and entertainment centers
with a decline of traditional network of local sites servicing the population, a sharp rise in the
number of cars and traffic collapse and a presence of former industrial (the so-called «brown»)
areas, requiring re-cultivation; construction of main communications – speed railways,
highways, pipelines, and power lines through reserved areas, traditional sites of mass recreation;
increasing problems of garbage collection and waste disposal, treatment of industrial emissions,
sewage, etc.
The above requires not only counteraction of the detrimental impact of the hazardous
processes concerned on the cultural and natural heritage, due protective measures, both at the
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
32
level of general area planning and regulation of construction activities, and in the development of
special legal documents regarding environmental protection, protection zoning and regulation of
town-planning and economic activities.
Among the spatial projects recently implemented in Russia involving specialists of the
Institute on Reconstruction of Historic Cities (INRECON) is the elaboration of the special
sections on situation analysis and proposals for cultural heritage protection and management on
the basis of the Building Code within the nationwide Scheme of Territorial Planning (Spatial
Planning Documentation) of the administrative units of the Russian Federation (regions, lands
and republics), аs well as municipalities (districts). The above made it possible to lay out
strategy for preservation and enhancement of cultural heritage under continuous urbanization in
urban and rural areas and also less developed inland territories.
For instance, considering the section of the Scheme of Territorial Planning of the
Vologda Region, the territory around the Village of Ferapontovo where the World Heritage Site
«Ensemble of the Ferapontov Monastery» is established , was set aside as one of the zones of the
concentration of cultural heritage sites of regional significance, with recommendations for
subsequent measures to be taken within its boundaries to protect such sites and their cultural and
natural landscapes. True, regarding the area concerned, one has to have in mind that it is not
overpopulation impact as a result of the continuous urbanization processes in combination with
the demographic problems involved, but rather excessive loss of local inhabitants, endangering
total depopulation of the rural area and the measures to be taken to consider the above situation.
The same objectives in relation to natural heritage were stated in developing the
environmental sections in a number of Schemes of Territorial Planning, including the regions
that have World Heritage Sites within their boundaries.
Unfortunately, there are no federal regulations available for the development of the
special sections of the above projects, and the latter were developed by some individual
customers or developers who recognized the importance of the above aspect of territorial
regulation in no more than one fourth of the country‘s regions (Sokhranenie i ispolzovanie,
2010). Thus, the objective of continuing large-scale work to set up strategy for protection and
use of cultural and natural heritage remains of importance. Apparently, this can be reflected in
the recommendations of our Seminar – in fact, according to information available the similar
problems are also faced by other countries, including respective World Heritage Sites.
The problem is acute of considering the requirements for the conservation of cultural
heritage under conditions of urbanization where planning and building projects are developed –
master plans of urban and rural built-up areas, the planning projects of some individual areas in
the cities and also land-use and development regulations and plans of specific land plots. This
aspect deals exactly with the World Heritage Sites, primarily, cultural heritage sites, as natural
heritage sites are normally away from built-up areas directly affected by urbanization.
In our and in other countries, the conditions for the conservation and use of the urban
World Heritage Sites are largely dependent on the master plans and other general spatial
planning documents of those cities. This to varying extent applies to Saint-Petersburg, Moscow,
Novgorod Veliky, Vladimir, Suzdal, Sergiev Posad, Kazan, Derbent, Yaroslavl, just as probably
to Baku (Azerbaijan), Echmiatsin (Armenia), Nesvizh (Belarus) and other cities with the World
Heritage Sites.
With regard to the master plans of the cities, those who are in charge of World Heritage
Sites‘ preservation are to rely upon the conservation requirements as reflected in functional
zoning regulations (including removal or at least reduction in location of «unfriendly» structures
associated with excessive development density, excessive accumulation of people,
environmental pollution, etc.); organization of the transport system (direction of the traffic along
detour routes, ensuring ready access to World Heritage Sites, ensuring mass passenger transport
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
33
and construction of convenient temporary parking lots, for tourist buses and private vehicles); for
construction zoning - (a distant location of the main areas designed for mass construction of
multi-storey and tall buildings from the World Heritage Sites); conservation of the environment
and engineering development and equipment of the areas.
With regard to other city building documents, decisions reflected in the Regulations for
Land Use and Development as the main regulatory enactments in terms of spatial planning that
are legally valid are of great importance to the outstanding universal value‘s conservation in the
urban World Heritage Sites. In this case it is of greatest importance to ensure general planning
documents of limitations and prescriptions developed and approved in the projects for heritage
protection zones, in particular, proposals for the regimes of land use and city limits within the
boundaries of the World Heritage Sites and their buffer zones. This meets the regulations of the
Russian law and should be observed, but actually, it is not always the case when the World
Heritage Sites conservation authorities and stakeholders do not need to control the situation.
It is of interest to know the way such problems are solved in other countries, including
the countries represented at the present seminar.
As to the above proposals on the regimes and protocols of the activities admitted in the
neighborhood of the World Heritage Sites within the city boundaries, requirements for their
development, its methodological foundations, analysis of the lessons learned represent the very
essence of the problem concerned. In this case, one has to bear in mind that a number of things
regarding these requirements, methods and experience have some features in common and
analogous sites can be used, but each of the World Heritage Sites is unique by definition, with its
own «site spirit», which requires care and consideration of the site character and application of
general approaches to the site and its surroundings.
For instance, the urbanization pressure endangering cultural heritage in the form of
excessive intensification of development of historical regions, increasing its density and the
number of storeys, functional regeneration, traffic excess, heavy environmental pollution is
clearly manifested in such great capitals with World Heritage Sites as Saint-Petersburg and
Moscow, but also (to a lesser extent) Kazan, Yaroslavl, Novgorod Veliky and Vladimir. In
smaller towns this pressure is considerably less, but there are some manifestations, and taking
into account smaller size of the built-up areas, they can also exert a notably negative effect, even
in case lower absolute parameters, on the World Heritage Sites and their surroundings – Sergiev
Posad, Derbent. Suzdal.
Let us supply at least two Russian examples. In Suzdal, one of the most charming and
preserved small Russian historic towns, it is only two components the Christorozhdestvensky
Cathedral and Spasoefimyevsky Monastery. But for them, too, and for a number of other history
and culture monuments of that city, of great importance is retaining the unique nature of its
historical and urban environment. The above involved some serious problems as a result of an
increased demand for construction of rich cottages – largely, funded by newcomers in the city.
The above construction is aggressive, without considering the environment and frequently with
destruction of some valuable elements of cultural heritage as was the case, when an access drive
to one of such cottages was constructed in a barbaric manner – the ancient mound of the Suzdal
Kremlin of the 12th
century was outrageously cut. It is shocking that the above occurs with
obvious support of the local city authorities despite the protests of the advocates of the unique
heritage of the city. Today, the status of a heritage site «Historical Center of Suzdal» has been
approved by the regional government. Will it help? We shall see.
In the city of Yaroslavl whose historical center was included in the World Heritage List
in 2005, the same body of authors developed two versions of the Project for Protection Zones of
the City Cultural Heritage Sites. The first version established and described precisely the
boundaries of the World Heritage and its buffer zone (a very rare case in our practice). That
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
34
version was approved by the regional government in 2008. Аnd today, the second version is on
the verge of approval. They only differ in the regime of land use and city-building limits,
permitting the construction of a number of buildings approved by the city authorities and
«forgotten» (!) in the nomination of the World Heritage Site and development, coordination and
approval of the first Protection Zone Project. True, this is a clear manifestation of continuous
active pressure on historic areas by urbanization and lack of control, or poor management of the
process concerned and conservation of cultural heritage.
Hence, the task of protective regulation regarding culture heritage sites is of such great
importance as to construction and any developments in the areas of World Heritage Sites and
their buffer zones in particular. The above applies both to the methods of development and
approval of the projects for land use, city building limits, and to an equal extent, maintaining
discipline in their implementation and constant monitoring and other forms of control.
Clearly, each country there may have its problems but it appears that a number of things
is similar and of mutual interest. In fact, in Russia today there is a problem of compatibility of
the UNESCO requirements to the conservation regimes of the sites inscribed in the World
Heritage List (on the initiative of our state – the Convention party), with internal national
mechanisms of the cultural heritage sites administration and management in conformity with the
Russian law. Not everybody is aware that the latter should be brought in conformity with the
former. As a result, some of the World Heritage sites – their particular components and elements
formally inscribed in the UNESCO List of those sites do not belong to the lists of cultural
heritage sites protected within the country or have lower level of protection. Today, the
possibility is being actively discussed and implemented at some places (for instance, in Vladimir
and Suzdal in 2008-09) of declaring complex cultural heritage sites as dostoprimechatelnoe
mesto (heritage site). The merger of the boundaries of their areas with the boundaries of the
World Heritage Sites, and the boundaries of their protection zones with the buffer zones of those
sites and lending a federal status, which would extend the higher protection level required to all
the World Heritage Sites. To date the projects for such heritage sites were approved by the local
authorities in the cities of Vladimir and Suzdal and developed for the city of Yaroslavl.
Of particular importance has recently been searching for a response to the challenges of
the conservation of the outstanding universal value of World Heritage Sites as a result of
attempts of construction of high-rise buildings in the neighborhood of those sites. This firstly
emphasizes the significance of setting aside buffer zones for those sites where such zones have
not yet been established, and secondly, suggests a new approach to determining the size of those
zones, as the visual effect of high-rise buildings may extend to vast areas. In addition to the
above-mentioned situation in London and Liverpool, conservationists throughout the world have
been actively discussing the threats to the traditional image of the World Heritage Sites in
Prague, Turin, Barcelona, Isfahan, Salvador, many other outstanding cities, and of course, in
Russia – in Saint-Petersburg and Moscow. In Saint-Petersburg, the immediate hazard seems to
have been eliminated. But in case the notorious Gazprom tower is constructed far from the
historical center of the city – a World Heritage Site – the question arises how far from the
center? In fact, the site concerned is far expanded and its components are «almost everywhere»
in the city.
The issue of the relationship between the of World Heritage Sites and the high-rise
building and the effect urbanization processes on the preservation of outstanding heritage values,
leads us to turn in the conclusive part of the report to the qualitative changes of the recent years
in the conservation community to the interaction in terms of conservation and development of
built-up areas in the environment.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
35
It seems that the most significant events in this respect occurred almost simultaneously in
2005 in the middle of the first decade of the new century. The first of them was the release in
February of a drastically modified publication of the Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, which as a result turned into the
―Constitution‖ of managing the World Heritage at the international level (Operational
Guidelines, 2005). It focuses on the issues of managing the sites, more rigid requirements to
control their distribution and regular reports and prompt identification of the arising threats –
new construction, etc. Subsequently, in April in Kazan, a special conference of UNESCO experts
was conducted to develop the ―outstanding universal value‖ concept as a mandatory feature of
the World Heritage Sites (Special Expert Meeting, 2005). The very need to develop it 25 years
after the beginning of inclusion of the sites that according to the Convention of 1972, are to have
this value looked paradoxical and was evidence of the recognition of re-evaluation of a number
of original concepts in the area of cultural and natural heritage at the international level. Finally,
Vienna held a UNESCO conference that addressed the issues of the interaction of the World
Heritage Sites and modern architecture, and adopted the Vienna Memorandum. The
Memorandum closely connected the above issue with the need for a balanced management of
another terminological and conceptual innovation of world conservationism – the historical
urban landscape (Vienna Memorandum, 2005).
The recent years have seen a number of meetings and discussions of some serious
challenges of modernity in relation to cultural and natural heritage, and some new documents
appeared that merit close consideration. Among them are the regional UNESCO conferences
discussing the historical urban landscapes held in Israel, Russia and Vietnam. Also worthy of
mentioning are some scientific symposiums by ICOMOS on «Changing World. Changing Views
of Heritage, the Effect of Global Change on the Cultural Heritage», which addressed various
changes affecting the preservation of cultural heritage – ecological, technological and social
changes. In addition, to our very important seminar, the very beginning of the second decade will
be marked with the discussion at the next ICOMOS General Assembly of a very curious and
unusual theme: «Heritage as a Guide of Development»; and the General UNESCO conference in
2011, planning adoption of ―Recommendations on Historical Urban Landscapes». And it is
exactly today that multi-faceted and complicated discussion of the draft Recommendation in the
World Heritage Convention party states is taking place.
The above testifies to implementation of some serious revisions in the concepts of the
conservation community in relation to interactions between the conservation and development of
our environment in the modern world. The present-day agenda features the problems of a new
paradigm of heritage and development in heritage conservationists of Tolerance for Change,
mastering the skill of «managing changes» in historic environment.
Moreover, the most gallant members of our community are confident that this is exactly
the urban cultural heritage is to be regarded as a sample of sustainable development to be guided
in the modern world. The above approach is exemplified by adoption at the latest session of the
ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on historic cities and villages (CIVVIH), held in
2010 in the city of Valletta on Malta, of a document entitled: «The Historic City as a Reference
Model for Sustainable Urban Development Policies» (The Historic City, 2010).
The basis of the above recommendation are multiple changes experienced by historic
cities within the centuries of their existence, the fact that they are firmly rooted in the
environment, and multifunctional, combining tradition and flexibility, the environment being
commensurate to the man, experience in the utilization of traditional materials by the man, some
peculiar local power, manifested in the perception of the «local spirit». According to the authors
of the above documents, these properties, used creatively, can provide the sought-for
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
36
sustainability of the urban environment anew or in the course of active transformation, the urban
environment.
The above, it seems, urges the conservationists and managers of the urban heritage, and
primarily the World Heritage Cities, to turn to the investigation and the preservation of that
heritage in a maximally broad framework, without being limited by real estate and, mostly,
authentic sites. Of interest and meriting attention are multi-layered sites and copies reproducing
the originals in case the latter have been lost as well as intangible reminiscences of the past
condition of the urban environment (supported by evidence available in the movable heritage
items), legendary and even mythological and reflections of historical motifs in modern
architectural and decorative work and traditional activities, life style in their historic urban
environment (either authentic or reproduced). Along with that the leading role of tangible
authentic components of the cultural heritage, whose value could be reliably recorded and which
can be controlled. The preservation of other heritage components shall be definitely prescribed in
the recommendations of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee via their manifestations in the
space material environment.
Thus, the following recommendations could be proposed for the decisions of our seminar
regarding registration and management of the World Heritage Sites with special reference to
change trends in the urbanization process:
1. Taking actual measures for mastering at all levels of the management of World
Heritage Sites and adoption of the management regulations contained in the documents of the
World Heritage Center of UNESCO, ICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN.
2. Mandatory setting up of inter-agency commissions for the management of each of the
World Heritage Sites, and also development and adoption for each of them of a special
regulatory enactment as the most essential part of the Management Plan.
3. Conduct a feasibility study for World Heritage Sites being assigned the status of
heritage sites to be stated in the national legislation with regard to all these territories‘ buildings,
structures and plots of land so that the protective status should be extended to all these items
within the boundaries of the above territories.
4. Regulate and limit the setting aside of the World Heritage buffer zones in conformity
with the national protective zoning of cultural and natural sites. The absence of buffer zones can
only be justified by a special decision of the World Heritage Committee‘s Decision that they are
not needed.
5. The decisions for the management of the World Heritage Sites and setting aside of new
sites to be included the Tentative Lists of future World Heritage Sites as based on studies and
conclusions of historical and cultural and environmental assessment should be observed on a
mandatory basis.
6. Master actively the methodology of the management of the World Heritage Sites in
universities and professional trainings along the lines associated with the protection of cultural
and natural heritage.
In conclusion, the conservationist community, including the conservationists of the
countries represented at the present Seminar will hopefully be able to respond to the challenges,
associated with continuing urbanization, which is often haphazard due to poor manageability and
dangerous to the preservation of cultural heritage, including the World Heritage Sites. Shall we
be patient to the proceeding change, shall we be able to manage it without detriment to the
preservation of our cultural and natural heritage is the important question facing us!
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
37
References
1. World Report on the URBAN Future 21. Prepared by the World Commission URBAN 21.
Berlin, 2000.
2. Sokhranenie i ispolzovanie istoriko-kulturnogo naslediya na regionalnom urovne, v tom chisle
i pri razrabotke skhem territorialnogo planirovaniya. Svodny Otchet. TsNIIP
gradostroitelstva. Moscow, 2010 (in Russian)
3. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO
World Heritage Centre. WHC. 05/2. 1 February 2005.
4. Special Expert Meeting of the World Heritage Convention: The concept of outstanding
universal value. ICOMOS Background Paper. Kazan, 2005.
5. Vienna Memorandum on ―World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture – Managing the
Historic Urban Landscape‖. UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Vienna, 20 May 2005.
6. The Historic City as a Reference Model for Sustainable Urban Development Policies // Malta
CIVVIH Position Paper. Valletta, Malta, 2010.
7. Krogius V.R. Goroda Vsemirnogo naslediya kak poligony izucheniya mezhdunarodnogo
opyta sokhraneniya i ustoichivogo razvitiya istoricheskikh gorodov. Okhrana kulturnogo
naslediya: Materialy ICOMOS. Vypusk 2, Moscow, 2009, pp. 16-29 (in Russian)
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
38
Cultural Landscapes in the World Heritage List and in Russia
Marina Kuleshova Cultural Landscape Management Department, Heritage Institute, Russia
The World Heritage List grows rapidly and is supplemented with the new nominations.
At the same time the requirements to quality of these nominations increase, that is reflected in
the permanently updated Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention. A category of «cultural landscape» emerged in this document in 1992. It has been
proposed as a specific group in cultural heritage, with own characteristics, and the most crucial is
an evidence of the combined work of nature and culture, resulting in the recognized historical
identity and spatial integrity of the site.
The lists of cultural landscapes are being permanently updated and published on a
website of the World Heritage Center. The objects registered in such lists are officially
recognized cultural landscapes. However, the analysis of the World Heritage List shows a lot of
nominations with specific features of cultural landscapes, but enlisted beyond this category. It is
clear that until 1992 the nominated cultural landscape sites could not been formally designated,
and after 1992 not all countries considered it necessary to propose their nominations in this
specific category. Therefore, there are some hidden or latent objects in the World Heritage List
along with officially recognized cultural landscapes. It is excellently shown in Peter Fowler‘s
review (2003), who had discovered more than 100 cultural landscapes nominated before 2002,
and 30 of them were officially designated by that period. Let's take into consideration, that
official list contained only 66 cultural landscapes in 2008. The same list of 66 sites is reproduced
in the Manual No 26 published in the proceeding of the UNESCO World Heritage Center in
2009. The manual presents cases on identification, conservation and management of the cultural
landscapes attributed to the World Heritage. But these cases refer to both 66 listed objects, and
the other nominations that are not registered in the official lists of cultural landscapes (the
frontiers of the Roman Empire, Lapland in Sweden, the Solovetski Complex in Russia, Rideau
Canal in Canada, Machu Picchu in Peru, etc.).
Our analytical research reveals that among 704 objects of the World Cultural Heritage
existing in early 2011, around one forth part may be attributed as the cultural landscapes
according to requirements of the Operational Guidelines, another quarter – to the urban
landscapes. By current rules of UNESCO city sites cannot be referred as cultural landscapes.
However, at the end of 2011 a special issue is already included into the agenda of the General
Conference of UNESCO, in relation to approval of Recommendations on historical urban
landscapes and implementation of the landscape approach for the solution of the urban heritage
conservation problems. Among 27 combined natural and cultural objects of the World Heritage
the overwhelming majority may be referred to cultural landscapes. Among 180 objects of the
World Natural Heritage about 10 percent can be ranked as cultural landscapes, for example, the
Great Barrier Reef in Australia or El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve in Mexico.
A question arises - why for it was necessary to check the World Heritage List in a search
for cultural landscapes? What is the difference - are there 66 or 366 of them? In our opinion,
cultural landscape represents a specific type of the phenomenon and recognition of one or
another heritage site as a cultural landscape entails very important consequences.
First, combined work of man with the nature presumes the need to take into consideration
some factors of impact upon natural objects and biodiversity. In many cases natural objects have
the exclusive cultural status, in particular the sacred sites – for example, Sacred Lake Baikal
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
39
(Russia), Osun-Osogbo Sacred Grove (Nigeria), Sacred Mountain of Sulaiman-Too
(Kyrghyzstan), etc.
Secondly, the living cultural landscape does exist due to traditional economic activities –
agriculture, forestry, trade, housing construction etc. These are numerous wine producing
(vineyard) landscapes of Europe, some pastoral landscapes, landscapes of nomadic and
aboriginal cultures. For example, cultural landscape of the Curonian Spit has developed due to
afforestation at the moving dune sands and fishing activities where local population was
engaged. The Russian party plans to establish here a special tourism and recreation zone that
might destroy the historic texture of a cultural landscape.
Thirdly, the cultural landscape consists not only of material objects: it includes intangible
heritage as well. Hence, the concept of a cultural landscape provides close interoperability of two
international conventions – the World Heritage Convention (1972) and the Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). It‘s not incidentally that a lot of objects
in both the List of the World Cultural Heritage and the
List of Masterpieces of Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity coincide – the Rice Terraces
of the Philippines Cordilleras ( Philippines) and the Hudhud Chants of the Ifugao (IH); the
Traditions and practices associated to the Kayas in the sacred forests of the Mijikenda and the
fortified villages and the Sacred Mijikenda Kaya Forests (Kenya); ―Following the Cross‖
Procession on the island of Hvar (Croatia) and the Stari Grad Plain on the Adriatic island of Hvar
(Croatia).
Fourthly, all components are important in the cultural landscape, in addition to the unique
buildings and monuments. In the UNESCO Manual the latter is emphasized: recognition of the
outstanding value of the certain cultural landscapes in spite of the presence of outstanding
monuments sanctioned to safeguard cultural assets of many peoples and countries.
Repetition of a certain type of the heritage objects in various countries adequately reflects
national cultural character and a way of self-identification. This way, in the Great Britain a
number of sites, referred as cultural landscapes, are the factory settlements of the industrial
revolution period with the industrial landscape, for example, New Lanark textile settlement
established by Robert Owen. The polders and various water-regulating systems are characteristic
for the Netherlands. Sacred mountains are one of the main topics in China. In Greece these are
archeology and sacred sites, in Morocco – the Medinas of the cities. First national parks were
nominated by the USA, and this fact shall be considered as a certain cultural declaration, as this
country has recognized own natural heritage via these phenomena.
What type of heritage sites is specific for Russia?
Russia has well balanced List of objects incorporating 9 natural and 15 cultural sites.
Among the latter is the Curonian Spit jointly presented by Russia and Lithuania, with the official
status of a cultural landscape. The parity of natural and cultural nominations in the World
Heritage List is kept at a proportion 1:4 for many years already. At the same time, Russia is one
of the leaders on a number of natural nominations (after Australia - 15, China – 12, the USA –
12, Brazil – 7, and on a par with Canada – 9 sites). Abundance and diversity of nature is one of
the basic characteristics of the historic and cultural space in Russia. Some Russian researchers, in
particular Prof. Boris Rodoman, pledge that the principal cultural mission of Russia in the
globalizing world is the conservation of nature.
Meanwhile, architectural ensembles and monuments prevail among the World Cultural
Heritage in Russia today, and more than half of them are the urban sites. These are masterpieces
of architecture, creativity centers and important historical markers corresponding to the criteria i,
ii, iv. In the Tentative list of the Russian objects there are 10 natural and 16 cultural phenomena.
One of the objects, the Valamo Island, is considered as a mixed natural and cultural site (this is
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
40
hardly feasible because of extensive construction activity of a local monastery as well as
reticence of such religious institutions).
Another site - an ancient Russian city of Pskov with the outskirts, is presented as a
cultural landscape. Another three are archeological objects - the ancient city of Tanais
Bosporian Kingdom, petrogliphs of Sikhote-Alin and ancient Bulgar settlement.
So, what should be added to the Russian tentative list to demonstrate the cultural assets of
Russia more adequately and representatively, so that v-criterion on traditional phenomena would
appear in the value criteria more frequently?
In the historical aspect Russia has been and still remains the Orthodox country for many
observers. Therefore it is clear, why the church architecture is represented so widely in its
heritage (Church of the Ascension in Kolomenskoye, the Kizhi Pogost, various Kremlin and city
churches) and monastic complexes (Solovki, the Ferapontov monastery, the Trinity Sergius
Lavra in Sergiev Posad, the Novodevichy Convent). It happens that monastic complexes are not
limited to the monastery walls, they extend to adjacent territories and transform them to a
specific monastic landscape. The best examples are Mount Athos in Greece and Solovki in
Russia. In the mean time, Solovetsky monastery landscape is not presented in the World
Heritage, only the cultural-historical ensemble of a monastery has been inscribed to the List.
Let's remind, that Mount Athos is registered in the List as natural and cultural object; it covers
350 sq. km (Solovki Archipelago is 295 sq. km without marine area), embraces 20 monasteries
and 12 small secluded monasteries (there are 9 smaller secluded monasteries and hermitages in
Solovki), represents outstanding value by 6 criteria (only one iv-criterion is applied to Solovki).
The expert evaluation report by the international mission on Solovetsky Archipelago in 1998
recognized the Solovetsky Islands as the cultural landscape, and the subsequent research of the
Heritage Institute confirmed this nomination by 8 value criteria (i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, x)3.
3 i – presents masterpiece of combined work of man and of nature, including numerous cultural values
and natural virtue in their relationship; unique combination of man-made, evolving and associative types
of cultural landscape;
ii – the largest center of Orthodox monastic culture, which has influenced the formation of the cultural
space of the Russian North, having been a center of innovations;
iii – impressive illustration of relic pre-Christian cultures, which is unique in wide spectrum and variety
of forms; sacred landscape noted by numerous masonries, capes, labyrinths, etc.;
iv – an outstanding historic palimpsest, which has testified the history of Russia (the farthest Orthodoxy
outpost in the North since 15th century; Russian military fortress in the 16
th century; a site of Nikon‘s
antagonists revolt and its cruel suppression in the18th century; concentration labour camp in the 20
th
century);
v – an outstanding example of historic monastic land use representing all the traditions of the Orthodox
monastic culture, which has become vulnerable and relic under the irreversible processes of civilization
development. The cultural landscape has a typical structure: monasteries, chapels, crosses, sacred wells,
sacred sites. The hydrological regime is re-formed by a network of channels forming laborious lake-canal
network; marsh ecosystems are partially drained to become meadows;
vi – highly informative associative landscape supported by legends, sacred sites, related with historical
persons (Phillip Kolychev, Peter the Great, patriarch Nikon, Pavel Florensky, Dmitry Likhachev, etc.),
Russian Golgotha of the 20th century, an outstanding example of toponym transfer from the Holy Land to
the Solovetsky Islands (Golgotha mountain, Favor mountain, Eleon Mountain, cape of Edem);
vii – landscape of outstanding aesthetic value with panoramic and colorful landscapes, contrasts of
tundra, a mosaic of woods, lakes and bogs, incessant change of colors of the sea with silhouettes of the
adjacent islands, effects of the white nights and the polar lights;
x – key habitats of rare biota types: moult stations of eider (Somateria mollissima), key reproduction
station of the White Sea population of the white whale, site of mass waterfowl stops during seasonal
migrations, seasonal accumulation of seals etc.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
41
Russia was commonly considered to be a rural country, and rural culture has determined
its characteristic landscapes, but in modern Russia this culture becomes a relict. Traditional rural
culture is the obvious heritage of the country, yet it is neither presented in the Russia‘s World
Heritage List, nor in the tentative list. Kenozero, Pinega and Mezen regions of the Russian North
still keep enclaves of the relic rural and coast-dwelling cultures and the rich traditions of wooden
architecture. The cultural landscape of these lands and seas includes natural ecosystems as well –
pastures, hunting lands, fishing areas. Kenozero has good prospects for protection – it is the
Kenozersky National Park. The Heritage Institute has reviewed the outstanding universal value
of this cultural landscape according to the following criteria – ii, iii, v4. The management-plan
for the Kenozersky National Park has been developed in the partnership with the leading experts
of the Institute.
Another feature of the Russian landscape, in particular in the central part of Russia, is the
relicts of landowner country estate culture. Little is left from those land estates so numerous in
the beginning of the 20th
century. The reason is that the landowner class has been exterminated
or exiled. However their connections with the Russian language and literature, art, music and
poetry have favored the transformation of a whole system of such manors into museums (since
1960th
– into memorial estates). The most well known today are the following sites:
Yasnaya Polyana estate by Leo Tolstoy, Mikhailovskoye estate by Alexander Pushkin,
Spasskoye-Lutovinovo estate by Ivan Turgenev, Shakhmatovo estate by Alexander Blok,
Karabikha estate by Nikolay Nekrasov, Khmelita estate by Alexander Griboedov, Tarkhany
estate by Yury Lermontov. All of them form the historic country landscape and are inseparably
linked with it. Being an integral part of the Russian culture and a characteristic of the Russian
landscape, Russian estate should be presented in the World Heritage List.
Leo Tolstoy‘s estate in Yasnaya Polyana meets the criteria of outstanding universal value,
authenticity and integrity. It possess the powerful combination of landscape characteristics:
1) representativeness in relation to attributes of estate‘s structure and economy;
2) memorial due to inseparable relationship between the life and works of a man who had an
impact on the global world and culture; 3) authentic landscape created by Tolstoy in combined
work with nature that serves as living illustration to his literary works. Only few people pay
attention to another historical feature of this landscape. Leo Tolstoy has partially transferred the
spacious arable lands of his estate into the planted forests for implementation of his own project
of afforestation at the border zone of the wood and steppe. Thus he has added to the landscape
mosaics and elevated biodiversity level. The landscape of Yasnaya Polyana can be presented in
the World Heritage List according to 4 criteria: ii, iii, v, vi5.
4 ii – one of the key relic centers of the Russian oral epic testimony, that has enriched the world body of
folklore and demonstrates a genetic relationship with the legends of the Kiev Russia;
iii – archaic peasant cultural landscape, outstanding due to its structure and preservation; site of living
relic peasant culture with its unique elements and character;
v – an outstanding example of traditional land use and hunting, fishing and agricultural economies of the
rural communities in the Russian North, preserved since the 16th century that has become vulnerable or
extinct under the globalization impact. 5 ii – a site where the principal works of the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy have been created and his ideas
have been disseminated to affect the Russian society and the mankind; one of the initial centers of the
Russian humanism;
iii – unique evidence of extinct culture of the country estate landowner (disappeared in the beginning of
the 20th century), outstanding in its preservation level and authenticity and giving an adequate concept
about life of the former nobility;
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
42
Ethnic diversity of the Russian landscape is the essential feature of Russian cultural
space. Each nation possess own cultural values, that become visible in the landscape. Cultural
lifestyle and economic structure of small numbered indigenous peoples of the North and old
settler (mostly Old Believer) groups are under threat due to climate change and current policy of
the resource extraction. Their cultural landscapes are pastures, hunting and other traditional land
use areas, sacred areas and seasonal migration routes adapted to the extreme living conditions
through sustainable management traditions. Monuments of material culture are replaced here by
the sacralized nature and profound knowledge about nature. The examples include Mount of
Munku-Sardyk, Lake Baikal and Lake Hubsugul for the indigenous Sojot, Buryat and Mongol
peoples (at present Baikal Lake and Ubsunur are considered to be exceptionally natural
heritage), Vajgach Island and Bely Island for the indigenous Nenets people, the eastern point of
Chukotka and Ratmanov Island for Eskimos. The landscapes associated with the Pomor culture
are of particular interest in the Russian North. The village of Kimzha can serve as a promising
site of Pomor heritage.
The historic residences of the relic Cossack communities at the frontiers of the Russian
Empire also represent a unique phenomenon.
One of such sites is a unique literary and memorial landscape - it is Tikhyi Don. ―Tikhyi
Don‖ is the Russian title of Mikhail Sholokhov‘s novel ―The Quiet Don‖, the Nobel Prize
winner. The main area where the novel action takes place are the Cossack villages at the middle
course of the Don river. At present they are inhabited by the descendants of the vivid personages
by Sholokhov who have preserved their traditions, habits and lifestyle. In the novel much
attention is paid to the local landscape features; all the places of action are recognizable. In this
way novel is simultaneously a masterpiece and a documentary report, a data bank of exceptional
ethno-cultural landscape and specific cultural space. Based on the literary and associative value
of the site the memorial estate has been established here. This fact has influenced the
development of the entire district; it has given a new impulse of progress and has contributed to
the conservation of ethno-cultural identity of the Cossack community. On request from the
museum reserve the Heritage Institute has executed a special inquiry on the heritage evaluation:
an outstanding universal value of this landscape and site has been assessed according to the
selection criteria – ii, iv, v, vi, vii6.
v – outstanding relic sample of the organization of the country estate landscape in the environment of
traditional country land use, characteristic for the Russian culture of the end of the 19th century and the
beginning of the 20th century;
vi – Leo Tolstoy‘s associative literary landscape. 6 iv – cultural landscape of the middle Don river, one of the main sites of compact Cossacks settlement
representing the frontier culture, which has greatly influenced the history of Russia during the
establishment of its borders in the 19th century, as well as the formation of geopolitical and cultural space
of the Eastern Europe;
v – outstanding examples of the traditional types of settlements, as well as of everyday life and economy
organization, nature management and cultural identity of the Don Cossacks, folklore and preserved
traditions;
vi – exceptional example of a literary landscape and the site of creative work of Mikhail Sholokhov (the
author of the Tikhy Don novel and the Nobel Prize winner, who has opened the Cossack culture to the
world and wrote about their tragedy in the 20th century). The nature description, history, ethnography,
geography of the novel are reliable and well-recognized in the surrounding country;
vii – the most beautiful landscapes of the Southern Russia with abundance of rare flowers in steppe and
abrupt chalky banks of the Don river valley, which is the semantic dominant of the land, with a mosaic of
meadows, woods, arable fields and the Cossack villages.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
43
Let us consider another type of the cultural landscape that is still absent in the World
Heritage List: military and historic landscapes, battlefields and war monuments. Nomination of
such objects to the List is not welcomed, as they are certificates of military aggression, and this
property is not encouraged. But the times change and people start to look at the same objects and
circumstances from another point of view. Memorials have arisen in places where aggression
had been displayed and people had perished. The concentration camps in Poland are among such
sites in the World Heritage List (Auschwitz-Birkenau, or Oswentzim). At the places where
aggression has been manifested, people fought for their freedom and such places became
symbols of struggle for liberation, for example, the ancient fortress Masada in Israel, the World
Heritage Object. Finally, in 2010 the list was augmented with another new object – Bikini Atoll
in the Marshall Islands, where 67 nuclear explosions had been carried out (criterion iv, vi); now
it symbolizes the termination of the nuclear arms race.
The Borodino battlefield in Russia is an example of such a symbolic site. It‘s a place of
the battle of two great armies, the army of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Russian army under the
commander Mikhail Kutuzoff. The 200th anniversary of this event will be marked in 2012. This
site can be considered as a memorial of military events that shall never occur again.
Additionally, Borodino battlefield is a monumental illustration to the great novel of ―War and
Peace‖ by Leo Tolstoy. He stated a very impressive anti-military ideology via his novel
personages and these ideas are associated exactly with the battlefield. In 2009 the Borodino
Museum-Reserve was honored with the Melina Mercouri International Prize for the
Safeguarding and Management of Cultural Landscapes, being just the only winner from Russia
to the present date. The Borodino field has the sound ground to be presented in the World
Heritage according to the following criteria: iv, vi.7
So, Russia has a rich potential of assets according to the criteria of outstanding
universal value of the world heritage. In a number of requirements to applicants for inclusion
into the World Heritage List there are listed the guarantees of site protection. In Russia such
guarantees are provided by the status of strictly protected natural territory or the status of
museum reserve. One national park and four memorial estates have been presented in the
aforementioned analysis. An additional requirement is set for the cultural landscapes as a part of
the World Heritage. They have to be managed with proper consideration of the local
communities‘ interests and needs. Consequently, guarantee of protection should be proved by
appropriate decision-making and governance at a local level. This problem at the Russian
heritage sites has not been solved yet. However, if we wish to expand representation of Russia in
the WHList through the cultural landscape nominations it is necessary to find appropriate
solutions.
Development of the management plans for the Russian sites in the World Cultural
Heritage emerged as an unexpected failure. It is necessary to mention that for the Russian natural
sites, the national parks and reserves, the practice of development and implementation of such
plan was introduced in early 20th
century with participation of the Biodiversity Conservation
Center, Russian Office of WWF and the Department of Foreign Aid of the United Kingdom.
7 iv – site of the battle, resulted in the great historical events not only in Russia, but in the European
continent as a whole, and has greatly changed the European political map in the early 19th century.
vi – outstanding landscape memorial with a lot of monuments to commemorate the victims of two great
wars (the Patriotic War of 1812 in Russia and the Great Patriotic War as a part of the World War II). A
monument to the warriors of the great Napoleon‘s army is one of the Borodino obelisks. All the
monuments were erected in memory of the killed in the Spaso-Borodinsky monastery, the first state
military-historical museum in Russia. This place is the key site in the action of Leo Tolstoy‘s ―War and
Peace‖ novel.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
44
Scientific employees of the Heritage Institute were involved in this activity along with the
British colleagues who insisted on regular meetings with the local communities and authorities to
be organized in the model natural sites. The problems of future development for these territories
were discussed during these meetings while partners were learning to communicate and build
relationships with the other stakeholders. Unfortunately, museum reserves had no chance to
participate in such practice because they are under supervision by another sector (Ministry of
Culture) and now it not easy for them to fulfill the requirements of the World Heritage
Committee on management plan development and implementation.
Global challenges discussed nowadays include uncontrolled urbanization on extensive
territories. These processes have already damaged and continue to threaten unique cultural
landscapes. First of all, these are the townscapes (St.-Petersburg is a good example), as well as
territories with health spa and recreational activity, such as the Western Caucasus and the
Curonian Spit, Baikal and Solovki. For example, the tentative projects on construction of wind
power installations is being discussed for Solovki, as well as the projects of cottage construction,
hotel complexes, tourist and recreational infrastructure development, construction of new
moorings and reconstruction of historical ones, etc. These projects are partially implemented.
Current legislation, status of museum reserve and the functioning monastery are not able to
effectively protect Solovki. The local population has no deep roots here or self-identity with the
heritage of this place. Restoration works on monasteries, hermitages and the monastery ensemble
evoke serious inquiries of the professional experts. Solovki is a site that is difficult to manage; in
1998 an international expert group recommended to transfer the heritage of Solovki to the ―under
threat‖ category and this was quite reasonable. Solovki does need international assistance and
monitoring, otherwise the archipelago will lose its universal value and could convert into
common investment area with new buildings, airports, trade centers, recreation and service areas.
Legislation does not always safeguard Russian heritage objects, if they are not protected
by the common public. There are examples of legal amendments to remove obstacles in
realization of specific construction initiatives, in particular the case ―On specially protected
natural territories‖ Federal Law that was ―corrected‖ to ensure construction of the Olympic
infrastructure in the Sochi national park (the Western Caucasus). But the reason is not a mere
current legal enforcement, urbanization or tourism pressures. The matter is that since economic
and legal conditions for accumulation of capital have been established in Russia, the capital is to
be invested into certain projects, and certainly it escapes the remote areas, but concentrates in the
very centers of various resources availability. And the World Heritage sites are very attractive
for these investment projects. The economic process cannot be stopped just by goodwill, in
particular under the still aggravating corruption. Lack of awareness and cultural education of
capital owners and authorities does not favor projects of heritage preservation. Present policy in
Russia has primary economic incentives; the economy is supported by big business, and business
is oriented at high profits. Contemporary business ignores social values; consequently the
economy ignores laws of social development, and the government disregards public opinion.
This is another global challenge.
The civil society is still only emerging in Russia, it is not always capable to protect its
values, in particular values of heritage and cultural landscape. However, it has already
demonstrated its capacity to defend assets of the World Heritage sites. Until present these
demonstrations are of incidental character and reflect sectoral governance, being divided into
cultural and ecological movements. So opposition to construction of a tower by Gazprom in
St-Petersburg was of culturological orientation and counteraction to construction of the Olympic
objects in the Western Caucasus has an ecological orientation and is led by non-governmental
organization of Ecological Watch on the North Caucasus (EWNC). The concept of a cultural
landscape enforce these movements with additional arguments, as Petersburg is a gorgeous city
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
45
not only thanks to the architectural ensembles, but it implies an outstanding urban landscape as
well; it has its own cultural space and own ecological framework. Consequently, area of new
Olympic constructions incorporates not only the Red Book species, crucial biocoenoses and
vulnerable ecosystems, but also rich cultural history, imprinted in the landscape. The cultural
landscapes in the World Heritage List are both an important component, and vital socio-cultural
paradigm capable to resist global challenges of the modern times.
Bibliography
Cultural landscape as an object of heritage. Edited by Yu.A.Vedenin, M.E.Kuleshova. M.-SPb.,
2004. – 620 pp. // www.heritage-institute.ru
Report on carrying out of monitoring of the World Heritage object ―Solovetski historical and
cultural complex‖ // The Newsletter ―Ecology of culture‖, № 4 (17). Arkhangelsk, 2000.
The World Heritage List. Translated by R.Krogius, N.Maksakovsky // Heritage Institute //
www.heritage-institute.ru
Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO.
1972.//UNESCO World Heritage Center // www.whc.unesco.org
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO. 2003.
//UNESCO World Heritage Center // www.whc.unesco.org
Fowler P. J. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992-2002 // World Heritage Papers 6.
UNESCO World Heritage Center, 2003. – 140 p.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO.
WHC. 08/01 – 163 p. // UNESCO World Heritage Center //www.whc.unesco.org
The Intangible Heritage List // UNESCO Culture Sector – Intangible Heritage //
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/
World Heritage Cultural landscapes: А Handbook for Conservation and Management (Nora
Mitchell, Mechtild Rossler, Pierre-Marie Tricaud) // World Heritage Papers 26. 2009. – 135 p.
//UNESCO World Heritage Center // www.whc.unesco.org
Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. UNESCO.
1972.//UNESCO World Heritage Center // www.whc.unesco.org
Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. UNESCO. 2003.
//UNESCO World Heritage Center // www.whc.unesco.org
Fowler P. J. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992-2002 // World Heritage Papers 6.
UNESCO World Heritage Center, 2003. – 140 p.
Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO.
WHC. 08/01 – 163 p. // UNESCO World Heritage Center // www.whc.unesco.org
The Intangible Heritage List // UNESCO Culture Sector – Intangible Heritage //
http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/
World Heritage Cultural landscapes: А Handbook for Conservation and Management (Nora
Mitchell, Mechtild Rossler, Pierre-Marie Tricaud).// World Heritage Papers 26. 2009. – 135 p.
//UNESCO World Heritage Center // www.whc.unesco.org
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
46
Global Transformations of Rural Cultural Landscapes –
Main Drivers and Management Challenges
Jørgen Primdahl University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Simon Swaffield Lincoln University, New Zealand
Introduction
The speeding up of social relations within institutional and organizational networks that
extend across large distances, and with no – or almost no - time lags in executing decisions, are
common characteristics in the literature of ‗globalisation‘ (Giddens 1990, Castells 2000). Local
activities become increasingly interlinked through more or less globalised networks and through
the same driving forces. Extent, intensity, velocity and impacts of the change processes seem to
be expanding (Held. et al. 1999) and policy regimes at all levels are challenged. Cultural
landscapes are profoundly affected by these dynamics, as they are shaped by driving forces
associated with globalised markets, technology and mobility as much as by local and historical
values and practices.
Based partly on recent works on globalisation and agricultural landscapes (Primdahl and
Swaffield 2010a) we present an overview of current change patterns and public policy challenges
associated with rural cultural landscapes. We particularly emphasise strategic policy choices,
including discussion of the relative merits of area designation of protected cultural landscapes as
a strategy compared to a more integrated approach.
First we briefly summarise an overarching framework of analysis that recognises two
global policy agendas that profoundly affect rural cultural landscapes - the market and
sustainability agendas - and the different levels of policy and decision making through which the
agendas are promoted. Then we analyse in more detail the main socio economic dynamics that
affect local and regional change in rural cultural landscapes. We identify several distinctive
policy domains by which the market and sustainability agendas are applied to these changing
landscapes and finally consider the different spatial approaches that are used to implement
cultural landscape policies within these domains.
Two global policy agendas and their influence on rural landscapes
Public policy concerning rural landscapes is not new. In fact, regulation of owner and
user rights and duties in respect to rural landscapes belongs to the oldest part of legislation in
many countries (Peil and Jones 2005). Today, a growing number of international and national
policies deal with various aspect of landscape functions and patterns. We find it useful to
distinguish between two different global policy agendas of particular relevance to rural
landscapes (see Fig. 1) (Dwyer and Hodge 2001, Primdahl and Swaffield 2010b).
The first is an open market agenda aiming at market liberalisations. This agenda, to
which sectoral agricultural policies belong, is a key driver of globalisation. The World Trade
Organisation (WTO) is the central international institution, and international, corporate and
national institutions are the key policy makers. Very few policy decisions are taken at regional
and local levels in this agenda. One implication of this is that it is difficult – if not impossible –
to include concerns for local rural landscapes directly into market related policies. An example
of this problem was the ‗set-aside‘ scheme which in the EU was an integral part of the CAP from
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
47
1992 until 2008. The main purpose of the scheme was to avoid or reduce surplus production
within EU, and the set-aside requirements were adjusted every year. As a consequence, farmers
would be required to set aside 15 percent of their crop land (over 17ha) covered by subsidies one
year, 8 percent the following year, then 12 percent etc. In effect the scheme meant that field
boundaries were changed throughout the continent every year, with obvious landscape impact,
which was not even considered when the scheme was introduced in 1992. The relationship
between market based regimes and cultural landscape values is discussed further in the final
section.
The second agenda deals with the promotion of sustainable development, and is related to
issues such as land use, water protection, soil conservation, nature and heritage conservation,
urban development and rural landscapes. The origins for the conservation dimensions of the
sustainability agenda can be traced back through a number of national and then international
programmes for nature and heritage conservation, including early national parks, and UNESCO
initiatives such as the World Heritage Convention (1972) and the Man and the Biosphere
programmes, as well as complementary programmes by organisations such as the IUCN (1994).
One of the major mile stones in the sustainability agenda was the publication ―Our Common
Future‖, the so-called Brundtland Report, which argued for the need to integrate social and
environmental concerns into economic policy (World Commission on Environment and
Development 1987). Thus, the contemporary sustainability agenda can be seen as a response to a
one dimensional and unsustainable market policy agenda.
Since 1980s the sustainability agenda has become highly influential upon environmental
policy in a broad sense, with a fast growing body of environmental experts worldwide, occupied
both within and outside political administrative bodies (O‘Riordan 1998). Under this agenda,
policies and plans are designed and implemented at all political-administrative levels. Hence
whilst the United Nations and its various programmes for sustainable development have become
important institutions at a global level, a key feature of the sustainability agenda and a point that
differentiates it from the market agenda is the role of local and regional physical planning and
environmental policies, as well as other local institutions and initiatives.
Fig. 1. Two policy agendas of particular relevance to rural landscapes. (From Primdahl and
Swaffield 2010b, p. 10, with inspiration from Dwyer and Hodge 2001).
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
48
The market and sustainability agendas meet in the local rural cultural landscapes in
different forms and with different consequences. Some of the high level decisions on trade and
trade conditions have immediate impacts on global food prices, and through this on farmers
decisions worldwide (for example decisions to introduce elements of carbon markets and
accounting). Others have more long term consequences (eg food market expansion and increased
competitions among farmers). In many cases (including the two examples mentioned) policy
decisions taken at the local levels within the sustainability agenda can only partially cope with
the consequences of market policies.
Change factors in rural cultural landscapes: agricultural developments and urbanisation
Most rural landscapes are ‗agri-cultural‘ landscapes, in which productive farming
activities represent a significant landscape function. However there are usually also a number of
other socio economic functions present in the landscape, such as forestry, residential housing (of
various densities and types), recreation and tourism. Rural landscapes embody a range of cultural
practices associated with these functions, as well as cultural features from previous periods such
as historical farm buildings and villages, old field and hedgerow systems, water systems, mills,
churches and other religious sites. These landscapes also often contain habitats of importance to
biodiversity which may be remnants of natural ecosystems, or, more typically in developed
countries, have been created through a variety of human cultural practices that shape natural
systems, such as semi-natural grasslands, silvo-pastural systems, and woodlands. The combined
socio-cultural and biophysical systems are frequently rich in a range of cultural and natural
heritage values (Stanner and Bourdeau 1995, Pedroli et al. 2007). However the political
economies and practices that created these mosaics of functions, features and values are
increasingly under stress. Two dynamics that are integrally linked to globalisation are of
particular importance in rural landscapes: Structural transformation of agriculture and
urbanisation.
First, transformations and transitions in agricultural structures and functions affect rural
landscapes everywhere. The market agenda means that national economies are increasingly
linked through global and bilateral trade agreements, and in some regions the very basis of the
political economy has been changing, sometimes dramatically. Markets for food, fibre and bio-
energy are expanding and changing as national and supra national agricultural policies such as
the EU Common Agricultural Policy become increasingly part of a global trading system. The
primary goal of the market agenda is to make agricultural production more competitive, and this
has different consequences in different landscapes (Morgan et al. 2007). Since World War II
production has been intensified in many regions, including most of Europe. There are several
components to this including technological innovations, socio-economic restructurings and
transformations of ownership and agricultural production, and reorganisation of food supply
chains and networks.
The use of more chemical inputs, new crop varieties (including GMOs), mechanisation of
field and stable work; new management systems that enable increases in livestock production per
unit, and expansion of the irrigated area and area under plastic and glass are some of the
technological innovations that have enabled agricultural production to increase dramatically.
This requires capital investment, which in turn has frequently been associated with changes of
agricultural tenure, ownership structures and organisation, with a concentration of production on
fewer and larger units and more corporate governance. These changes in the primary agricultural
structure are in turn intimately linked to changing distribution and processing systems, with the
development of large food networks that connect producers through industrial processing plants
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
49
to international food distributors and retail chains in industrialised countries (Watts and
Goodman 1997).
The landscape impacts of the change processes intensification have been immense
(Tilman et al 2002). Fields have been amalgamated and linear elements such as hedgerows and
stonewalls have been removed, ponds filled up, wetlands drained, water courses channeled, and
water resources and wildlife affected by chemical sprays and fertilizer. In other landscapes with
marginal conditions for agricultural production farming has been abandoned or extensified. In
these areas valuable semi-natural grasslands have been overgrown by shrubs and woodlands,
maintenance of terraces, stonewalls and farm buildings has ceased and people have moved out.
The abandoned landscape can change dramatically in character, and often erosion, loss of
biodiversity and increase in wild fires follow such marginalisation of agriculture. In other
settings however, agricultural marginalisation can have positive biodiversity benefits, as a
greater variety of species re-colonise land previously used for monoculture.
Parallel and to some extent interlinked with these changes in agriculture, different types
of urbanisation also influence rural landscapes (Primdahl et al. 2010). Traditionally, urbanisation
is the process of migration of people from rural, often remote regions into towns and cities. This
has been a continuing process throughout human history and now has global reach. During the
20th
century the global urban population had a 13-fold increase compared with the four-fold
increase for the entire global population, and in 2007 more than half of the people in the world
were living in cities for the first time in human history. This process is continuing on a global
scale, although faster in developing countries than in developed (Zlotnik, 2004). For some
landscapes, the disappearance of economic activities related to fishery, forestry and agriculture
has resulted in a hollowing out of the social and community structures previously associated with
rural landscapes, creating an increasingly impoverished and empty land.
However counter-urbanisation is also a worldwide phenomenon. This is the movement of
people from cities into rural areas, and can also be seen as form of urbanisation, in this case
understood as a socio-economic urbanisation of rural landscapes, when people with urban
incomes (or pensions developed from urban incomes) move into the rural landscape and manage
their land more as a living place than as a production place. Counter urbanization occurs mostly
within the rural fringe of urbanised regions, but is also evident in more remote regions, often in
highly attractive landscapes. In great parts of the Alp-regions in Southern Germany and Austria
for example there has been significant population growth between 1990 and 2000 due mainly to
counter-urbanization (EEA 2006 p.15) In landscapes where counter urbanisation is occurring
commercial farming may already be under pressure, and its decline can be accelerated by rising
land lifestyle prices and issues of reverse sensitivity (urban incomers objecting to rural
production systems). This is the case in the rural part of the Copenhagen region, for example,
where full time farmers have decreased in numbers, and their share of agricultural land has
dropped to less than 10 percent, while hobby farmers with incomes outside the farm have grown
proportionally (Busck et al. 2006). Counter urbanisation may also affect rural landscape cultures
by increasing demands for high quality food local food, stimulating organic agriculture, local
manufacturing of food, local farmer‘s markets etc, and through the growing recognition of and
demand for cultural landscape heritage features and values.
The landscape consequences of these counter urbanisation processes include – at least in
recent decades- an extensification of production expressed as a reduction in land in rotation,
increases in grass lands and woodland, and an increase in recreational activities and a growth in
non-agricultural businesses associated with incomers. Over time, these landscapes become more
and more urbanised in a socio economic and cultural sense, even if they appear to be reverting to
a more wooded, pre agricultural habitat. The long term consequences of counter-urbanisation are
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
50
more uncertain. In great parts of the North Eastern US agriculture had largely disappeared by the
beginning of the 1960s, due to a combination of counter-urbanisation and poor conditions for
farming, with the result that the landscapes have transformed into forest landscapes inhabited by
urban commuters and retirees (Gottman 1961). Similar patterns can be seen in some parts of SE
England (Bohnet et al 2003). However it remains to be seen what the long term trends will be for
many parts of Europe and other densely populated part of the world where urban centres adjoin
better quality land which retains production capacity. It is in these regions with good conditions
for agriculture – fertile, well drained soils and no difficult terrain conditions - that agriculture is
competitive globally, and it is in these regions we find high levels of investment in more or less
industrialised agriculture. It is however often also in these regions that major cities and urbanised
regions are located- because it was agriculture which historically provided the background to the
urban economy- and so urbanisation pressures are most intense as well. In many developed
countries the more marginal areas for agriculture are often also relatively attractive mosaic
landscapes, due to their historical legacy, to which some segments of the urban population wish
to move. At the same time it is especially from the marginal and remote agricultural landscapes
that people migrate to the city.
In summary, rural landscapes are affected by a combination of structural transformation
of agriculture and urbanisation. Whereas the effects of both agricultural structural developments
and urbanisation have each been well researched in many countries, their combined effects have
received less attention, yet deserve and require investigation (Primdahl et al. 2010). Figure 2
outlines these combinations.
Fig. 2. Two main change factors of agricultural landscapes – agriculture and urbanization,
including counter urbanisation and the general influence of ‗urban‘ investments and ‗urban‘
values. (Modified from Primdahl and Swaffield 2010b).
Poor conditions for
agriculture
High levels of
‗urbanisation‘
1. Intensive production
landscape dominated by
agricultural production
2. Mosaics of production and
hobby farms, housing and
businesses
3. Mosaics of pasture land
and hobby farms, housing and
businesses
4. Extensive production
landscape dominated by
grasslands and natural
habitats
Low levels of
‗urbanisation‘
Good conditions for
agriculture
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
51
Rural Policy Approaches
When the different rural policy drivers and responses are analysed we find that they tend
to coalesce into several policy approaches, each with a different policy focus and spatial logic
and with different implementation challenges for rural cultural landscapes (Table 1).
Table 1. Different approaches within rural landscape policy
Policy focus Spatial logic Examples of specific initiatives
Resource Purposive areal
designation
National Parks, heritage listings
Territory Integrated area
management
Local Area Plans
Sector Parametric Water quality standards
Issue Networks Local food partnerships
Resource focused policy has historically and continue to be typically based upon
purposive designation of some kind of ‗priority‘ or ‗target‘ areas, in which the protection,
conservation, or regeneration of particular natural and cultural resources and values are given
precedence over other values and functions. Territorial policy has historically been focused upon
land use policies and physical planning, particularly in urbanised or urbanising regions. There is
increasing emphasis upon the importance of integrated management of distinctive political or
homogenous landscape areas, and this can extend to non-material cultural values such as
landscape identity, as in the European Landscape Convention (ELC). Sectoral policy is typically
focused upon economic or service functions, such as agriculture. Strategies tend to be non
spatial, focused upon incentives or rules for particular activities (eg cultivation) or conditions (eg
water quality). Issue lead policy responds to emerging needs and opportunities that cross
resources, areas and sectors. Strategies tend to be increasingly based upon institutional
relationships and networks (eg local food cooperatives) (Fig. 3).
a b c d
Fig. 3: Contrasting policy strategies: Resource based designations (a); Integrated territorial
landscape management (b); Sectoral parametric measures (c); Issue based networks (d)
Resource Based Designations
Many landscapes are regulated through different types of purposive designation including
national parks, water protection areas, heritage landscapes and green belts. Such designated areas
– some are large expanding over several rural landscapes others are small including just parts of
a coherent landscape – are typically characterised by highly valuable resources, symbolic values
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
52
and/or visual qualities or by special locations. (Fig. 3) The purpose of designation varies (Selman
2006). Sometimes the designated areas represent something valuable to be protected (for
example against undesired forms of land use development). In other cases it may be that a
conservation strategy is required, to actively maintain a resource, for example hedgerows, or it
may need regeneration- for example re-afforestation. Regulatory measures from land use or
environmental legislation are the common instrument applied to protect resources, but in other
situations the designated areas are target areas for different types of action, ranging from land
purchase, to monetary incentives and disincentives, such as agri-environmental measures
through which the farmers inside the areas are offered grants for certain practices or public
supported projects such habitat restorations, to voluntarist educational programmes where the
main mechanism is moral suasion (Gilg 1996, Selman 2006).
There are several benefits of this approach. First, it allows legislation to be applied
differently to different kind of areas without violating the principal of equity before the law,
which is the basic rationale behind much of land use and planning laws. Another benefit is that it
enables efficient use of the funds available or at least is provides a means for prioritizing funds.
Finally the designation may also by itself be helpful for the local economy, for instance local
tourist businesses, because the designation of area- for example as a UNESCO heritage
landscape- may put focus on the qualities of the area in question and through this attract tourists.
However, designations are not without drawbacks. When certain areas are protected (against
some undesired changes for example) it means that others are not (Selman 2006). Designations
may risk reinforcing a polarisation of landscapes into on the one hand, very attractive, well
functioning (ecolocially and culturally) landscapes, and on the other, some ‗residual landscapes‘
without any ‗policy attention‘. An illustration of this is that nature reserves are not sufficient to
maintain biodiversity within a regional and global matrix of intensively used production space.
Connecting corridors and ecological fallows – ‗dynamic successional reserves‘ are also required
(Bengtson et al. 2003), but may fall outside the scope of the designated area policy.
Another potential cost of designations may be that farmers located outside priority areas–
and therefore not offered incentives - may be indirectly stimulated to either intensify production
or to give up farming – in both cases with potential negative landscape consequences. It can also
be seen as a limitation of the approach that is often not useful or meaningful to use in a local
planning context because the finer the scale the more difficult it is to draw the lines.
Deliberations over the extent of a designation can be highly contested if landowners fear that the
net effect will be a reduction of land value or flexibility. This means that within the local rural
landscape, designations are of limited value only. Finally, as the approach is highly dependent on
so called ‗objective‘ or ‗substantial‘ evidence it means it is difficult to apply more integrated
‗symbolic‘ strategies through designations.
Integrated Territorial Landscape Management
An approach very different from designations is to classify the region or area in question
according to entities or homogeneity (see figure 3b). The aim here is not to identify certain
special areas, sites or landscapes. Instead, the aim is to identify coherent areas – or landscapes.
This is the approach applied in landscape character mapping which has now been carried out at
different scales in many European countries. The approach is central to the European Landscape
Convention (ELC) signed by 38 and ratified by 33 (primo 2011) European countries. According
to Article 6 in the ELC each country shall identify its landscapes, assess the characteristics and
monitor changes. One major advantage of this approach compared to designations is that it
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
53
relates to people‘s everyday environments, and – although these environments vary in condition
and character – no one is excluded from policy attention, and no one is identified at the expense
of others. As part of place making processes it may help in strengthening local identity that the
local landscape is delineated, especially if the boundaries are openly discussed and represent
peoples own conceptualisation of ‗their landscape‘. One disadvantage with the approach may be
that it may be difficult to evaluate the policy effects in quantitative terms. This can be seen to
have two consequences. First, the argument can be made from a public choice perspective that
‗integrated‘ approaches may not be sufficiently ‗transparent‘. Second, they may be unattractive
to specific sectors, who may lose the pre-eminence they have within a sectoral approach (eg
farmers and agricultural policy). Set against this, a number of commentators highlight the
importance of spatially integrated policy for long term landscape sustainability and regeneration
(Selman 2006).
Sectoral-Parametric
Sectoral-parametric policy is focused upon the measurement and manipulation of
particular dimensions of a policy environment largely independently of location or place- such as
water quality standards. Parametric approaches to cultural landscape policy are a more recent
development, and may be seen expressed in recent agro-environmental schemes and in amenity
and heritage indicators within ecosystem service models. Here protection of conservation or
other outcomes are achieved by targeting the value of the ‗service‘ rather than a particular area.
Buffer strips along water courses or ‗beetle banks‘ crossing large fields are promoted because of
the positive effects they are assumed to have on reducing run offs and increasing biodiversity or
‗natural‘ predation‘ of pest insects for example – with the field (more or less decontextualised) as
the basic unit. This approach may also be used to validate the functional benefits of landscape
elements already in place, such as hedgerows and stonewalls. It has the benefit of reinforcing
beneficial processes and delivery of outcomes, rather than upon providing specified inputs and
outputs, and may be very cost-effective– there is no attempt to provide ‗most nature for money‘
– rather the opposite: most money from natural processes. This approach has, however a
drawback similar to the designation approach: what happens when the services provided by
certain landscape elements are clearly outnumbered by the economic benefits the farm gets to
remove these elements? And what about landscape elements which may be considered valuable
for their symbolic meanings but where the economic value of the ‗service‘ is hard to measure –
at least in a generally accepted way?
Issue Based Networks
Policy makers and planners have also been quick to incorporate new understandings of
rural network relationships ( Murdoch 2000) into policy formation for rural cultural landscapes-
for example in developing local partnerships. The focus here is upon constructive relationships
rather than upon location specific resources, areas, or particular ‗services‘. There are for example
a large number of rural landscape partnerships within the UK that, whilst based within a
particular locality or region, place most emphasis upon the identification and promotion of
institutional collaborations which are expected to have consequential positive benefits (Morgan
1997). Local food networks are an example (Morgan et al 2007), another is the Wildlife Trust in
England.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
54
Getting the context right – general versus specific policy solutions
Local landscapes are increasingly being linked with other local landscapes through
growing flows of information, materials (including food) and people. At the same time however
they are frequently becoming less well connected to adjoining landscapes. There are two
implications of these processes. One is a growing awareness of the global extent and
consequences of urbanisation and structural change in agriculture for issues such as climate
change, water management, decline in biodiversity, and food security. These concerns drive
macro scale policy initiatives intended to better connect the market and sustainability agendas.
The emphasis here has tended to be upon cross compliance and integration of sustainability goals
into market based relationships (eg certification and ecosystem services). The second implication
is a growing interest among people for their own local places, including the local landscape in
which they live their lives, and this provides momentum for more integrated territorial policies
and for local networks and partnerships, seeking what Selman (2006) describes as ‗virtuous
circles‘ within local landscapes.
In Europe, a growing proportion of the dominant policy regime affecting rural cultural
landscapes- the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - is currently in transition from a strictly
sectoral (parametric) regime into a more comprehensive rural development policy regime, in
which EU environmental policies are linked with agricultural and socio economic goals within
the same territory. The ELC is also driving policy towards a more integrated perspective upon
landscape. In the US, rural policy remains strongly sectoral, driven by Federal agricultural policy
( Nassauer 2010). This is also the case in Japan where rural policies are strongly linked to
sectoral ministries. In agricultural producer countries such as the Cairns group, rural landscape
related policies are typically expressed as limited purposive designations, and this is also the case
in many developing economies. Non spatial landscape policy regimes such as ecosystem service
models and network partnerships are being strongly promoted by some sectors, and the challenge
here is to identify policy regimes and institutions by which to better manage the interface of
market systems with valued cultural landscapes.
Just as landscape has emerged as a powerful new integrating perspective in urban
planning and architecture, because of its ability to incorporate areal, parametric and networked
phenomena and initiatives (Ahern 2002, Swaffield and Primdahl 2006), so we also support the
need and potential for a new ‗landscape‘ perspective upon policy for cultural rural landscapes
(Selman 2006). The emphasise we place here is upon the need to better integrate social and
environmental concerns into the open markets agenda to cope with local consequences of global
changes. At a high level of policy the challenge is to find ways to articulate the need for locally
adapted actions within market based regimes. There are a number of examples of this within the
CAP where payments are dependent upon alignment with local priorities, and a similar albeit
limited linkage is present in some certification schemes. However the links are often poorly
formed, and need a mechanism such as an approved local landscape plan to be the precondition
for certification or ecosystem service payments.
At the sub regional and local level it is clear that none of the strategies used so far are
sufficient in themselves, and the pathway forward is through development of hybrid and
combined strategies. Here a key problem is one of local governance- particularly institutional
design, equity, and efficiency in policy making. The NZ experience of resource management
reform has highlighted the difficulty of ensuring adequate policy and planning capacity at a local
level and the high demands that adaptive local planning can place upon local communities,
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
55
particularly when faced with external change driven by global capital. Landscape based
deliberation requires time, skills, a willingness to collaborate, and a measure of local autonomy
and flexibility in decision making about resources that may be hard to achieve in a globalising,
urbanising world.
Local based collaborative approaches also need the support of a robust higher level policy
framework. The importance of global and supra national institutions is two fold. First in
establishing a framework of concepts and good practice that can be drawn upon (such as the
ELC and UNESCO categories), there is a hand up to local capacity. Second, by bringing external
attention to local values, these values acquire greater legitimacy. Even an evaluation which is
unsuccessful in gaining an international designation can draw out values and place them in a
wider context. Paradoxically, international sustainability institutions and their actions can be
primary agents in ensuring locally legitimate and effective policy for cultural rural landscapes,
just as international market institutions have in the past been catalysts for globalisation processes
that threaten those landscapes.
References
Bohnet I, Potter C, and Simmons E (2003) Landscape change in a multifunctional countryside:
A Biographical analysis of farmer decision making in the English High Weald. Landscape
Research 28(4) 349-64
Busck A.G., Kristensen S.B.P., Præstholm S., Reenberg A., and Primdahl J. (2006). Land system
changes in the context of urbanisation: examples from the peri-urban area of greater
Copenhagen. Danish Journal of Geography. 2006, 106(2):21-34
Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society. 2nd
edition, London: Blackwell Publishers
EEA (2006). Urban Sprawl in Europe. The igsnored challenge.Characteristics, trends and policy
challenges. EEA-Report 10/2006. Copenhagen: European Environmental Agency
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press
Gilg A 1996 Countryside Planning: the first half Century. London, Taylor and Francis
Gottman, J. (1961). Megalopolis. The Urbanized North-Eastern Seaboard of the United States.
Twentieth Century Fund, New York
Dwyer, J. and Hodge, I. (2001). ‗The challenge of Change: Demands and Expectations for
Farmed Land‘. In Nature, Landscape and People since the Second World War T.C. Smout. (ed)
East Linton: Tuckwell Press, pp.117-134
Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. and Perraton, J. (1999): Global Transformation. Politics,
Economics and Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press
International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 1994 Guidelines for
Protected Area Management categories. London IUCN
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
56
Morgan, K., Marsden, T. and Murdoch, J. (2007). Worlds of Food: Place, Power and Provenance
in the food Chain. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Morgan K (1997) The learning region: institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional
Studies 31(5) 491-503
Nassauer, J.I. (2010). Rural landscape change as a product of US federal policy. In:
Globalisation and agricultural landscapes: Change patterns and policy trends in developed
countries. J. Primdahl and S.R. Swaffield (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.
185-200
O‘Riordan, T. and Voisey, H. (1998). The Political Economy of the Sustainability Transition. In:
The Transition to Sustainability: the Politics of Agenda 21 in Europe. T. O‘Riordan and H.
Voisey (ed.). London: Earthcan, pp. 5-30
Pedroli B, Doorn A van, Blust, G de, Paracchini ML, Wascher D, Bunce F. (ed.) (2007).
Europe's living landscapes. Essays exploring our identity in the countryside. Landscape Europe,
Wageningen. Zeist: KNNV Publishing
Peil, T. and Jones, M. (ed.) (2005): Landscape, Law and Justice. Oslo: Novus Forlag
Primdahl, J. (1999). Agricultural landscapes as places for production and for living in owner‘s
versus producer‘s decision making and the implications for planning. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 46, 143-150
Primdahl J. and Swaffield S.R. (ed), 2010a. Globalisation and agricultural landscapes: Change
patterns and policy trends in developed countries. CUP, Cambridge
Primdahl, J. and Swaffield, S.R. (2010)b. Globalisation and the sustainability of agricultural
landcapes. In: Globalisation and agricultural landscapes: Change patterns and policy trends in
developed countries. J. Primdahl and S.R Swaffield (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 1-15
Primdahl, J., Andersen, E., Swaffield, S.R., Kristensen, L.S. The intersecting dynamics of
agricultural structural change and urbanisation within European rural landscapes – change
patterns and policy implications. In Proceedings from the conference: Living landscape – the
European Landscape Convention in Research Perspective. Pisa: Bandecchi & Vibaldi 2010,
pp.355-370
Selman P (2006) Planning at the Landscape Scale. London , Routledge
Stanner, D. og Bourdeau, P. (1995): Europe's Environment. The Dobris Assessment. European
Environment Agency, København
Swaffield SR & Primdahl J 2006 ‗Spatial concepts in landscape analysis and policy: Some
implications of globalisation‘ Landscape Ecology 21(3) 315-331
Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, and Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability
and intensive production practices. Nature 418: 671-677
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
57
Watts, M. and Goodman, D. (1997). Agrian questions. Global appetite, local metabolism: nature,
culture, and industry in in fin-de-siècle agro-food systems. In Globalising Food, Agrian
Questions and Global Restructuring (ed.). D Goodmann and M. Watts. London: Routledge, pp.
1-32
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987): Our Common Future. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Zlotnik, H. (2004). World urbanisation: trends and prospects. In New Forms of Urbanisation.
Beyond the Urban-Rural Dichotomy (ed.) T. Champion and G. Hugo. Aldershot: Ashgate
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
58
Cultural Identity and Terraphilia
Zoran Roca Territory, Culture and Development Research Center, Lusófona University, Portugal
Maria de Nazaré Roca Research Centre for Geography and Regional Planning, Nova University, Portugal
Introduction
Over the past two decades the Portuguese academic, political and media discourses have
advocated topophilia, or ―the affective bond between people and place, or setting‖ (Tuan 1990:
4), in order to curtail mistreatment, profanation, degradation, waist, etc. of the uniqueness of
places and regions and, at the same time, to strengthen and/or (re)affirm local cultural
authenticity, or distinctiveness and identity as a development resource for places and regions.
Major argument has been that people should not only be sensitized about, but also engaged in the
protection of natural environment, cultural heritage and other distinct features of the geographic
space of residence, work and leisure (Albino 1997). Progress in the encouragement of topophilia
can be evidenced, for example, in the integration of sustainable development principles in basic
education curricula and Local Agenda 21 projects, in the flourishing of local/regional
museology, in the revitalization of historic urban nuclei and other built heritage, and in the
advocacy of the use of local natural, economic and cultural resources for the development of the
lagging rural areas (Roca 1998; 1999; 1999a), as well as for the revival of the sprit of
regionalism (Oliveira and Roca 2005).
It should be borne in mind, however, that topophilia changes as localities and regions
become ―produced‖ and ―contradictory spaces‖ (Lefebvre 1991), affected by
―deterritorialisation‖ (Barel 1986), or by ―detraditionalization‖ (Giddens 1994; Heelas 1999), if
not yet by the ―end of territory‖ (Badie 1995), or ―annihilation of space by time―(Harvey 2003).
Furthermore, topophilia alters with the emergence of ―global sense of place‖ (Massey 1991;
Rose 1995) and/or ―contested spaces‖ (Massey and Jess 1995). In spite of ―continuous salience
of places as settings for social and economic existence, and for forging identities, struggles, and
strategies of both a local and global nature‖ (Amin and Thrift 1994), topophilia also changes as
localities and regions become ―networked‖ and ―receptive to innovation‖ (Todtling 1994), ―on‖
and ―of the minds‖ (Agnew 1999), ―claimed‖ (Haartsen et al. 2000), ―recomposed‖ and
―articulated‖ (Benko 2000), ―re-affirmed‖ (Roca 2004), or indeed ―re-territorialized‖ (Haesbaert
2004) in the context of globalized economy and culture.
It has been amply evidenced that these kinds of changes have affected cultural identity of
many places and regions of Portugal. In fact, in spite of the efforts to encourage topophilia, the
loss of cultural identity has been on a constant increase in many spheres of life: from the
progressive reduction of ecological and demographic sustainability of rural areas, to the
deterioration of social and economic fabric and autonomy at the local level, often accompanied
by chaotic land use, blatant visual pollution and indeed conflicts between rural and urban
lifestyles, and a fierce competition for physical and social space between local(ized) and
global(ized) agents of economic and cultural change. The most notorious examples of such
alterations are, for example: substitution of the traditional terraced vineyards and of the mixed
cropping patterns by the modern, more productive and profitable, thus ―more competitive‖,
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
59
agricultural production techniques; adoption of consumer models that favour concentration of
commercial activity at the expense of traditional retailing; abandonment of social values such as
inter-generational solidarity and growing solitude and exclusion as commonly assumed social
patterns; loss of demographic vitality through ageing and emigration, and the consequent
reconfiguration of the spatial distribution of settlements (Ferrão 2002; 2004; Roca 2004).
Why is there a growing distance between the claims in favour of territorial identity as a local
development resource on one side and, on the other, the anti-identity reality and, thus, the fading
of topophilia? What could be done to stop this tendency? Policy-relevant answers and solutions
to such questions call for empirical records and taxonomies of the changing local identity
features affecting topophilia, for recognition of attitudes and deeds among the agents of local
change, and, ultimately, for endowing the concept of topophilia in terms of a pro-active,
developmental perspective. To this end, inn this presentation we bring forward research findings
obtained over the last decade from, first, a countrywide survey on the perception of the local
identity-globalisation interface in rural Portugal and, second, a regional case study on the
topophilia-terraphilia interface and local development. ―Terraphilia‖ has been a concept recently
coined by our research team and defined as ―affective bond between people and territory that
encourage local development intervention‖ that complements the notion of topophilia as its ―pro-
developmental extension‖ (Oliveira et al. 2010).
Local identity-globalisation interface
The need to care about cultural and features of local identity has been accepted as the
conditio sine qua non for further development of the Portuguese economy and society, especially
in rural areas, in the context of globalisation, or, as Albino suggested, "local identity must be
operationalised into a development resource ... The strategy of local development should be
based on the appreciation of the ancestral typicality as a means of encouraging further evolution
of new local innovations" (1997: 113).
In order to reconcile local development needs, potentials and contexts with globalized
conditionalities, a comprehensive appreciation of the origin and nature of the identity features of
geographical localities (places) and areas (regions) is required. The problem, nonetheless, is that
the concept of local identity has not been an analytical category. ―Local identity‖ can indeed
imply a great diversity of meanings, such as ―unique properties‖ of places and regions, their
―characteristics and particularities‖, ―natural and cultural heritage‖, ‖endogenous potentials‖ and
‖comparative (dis)advantages‖. Most often the actual content, scope and value judgements
behind such generalisations tend to remain subjectively driven, unclear and biased, thus
inadequate for the development policy and strategy design, or for development planning and
project formulation purposes that should normally derive from empirical records of verifiable
facts.
If it is unclear what the identity of a place and region means in practical and verifiable
terms, that is, beyond the generic and subjective designations, how can one determine what
aspect of identity needs to be strengthened, preserved, diversified, or made more competitive, so
that it becomes a factor of development? Furthermore, how to monitor and evaluate changes in
local identity, against which reference tresholds? Which quantiqualitative benchmarks should be
used to distinguish, compare, or predict desirable from unwanted changes in local identity? And,
even if the nature of local development issues at stake and the needs for change were identified,
who are the legitimate ―guardians‖ of local identity, that is, which institutions or individuals are
capable, or entitled, to cope with forces of globalisation locally?
Shortly after the last turn of the century, in the framework of our research project on the
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
60
effects of globalisation and local development in Portugal, a ground-breaking attempt was made
to detect the presence and nature of the changing local identity features in rural areas and to gain
insight about the role of development stakeholders in that change. To this end, an exploratory,
countrywide survey on knowledge, attitudes and practice (KAP) of local development agents in
relation to local identity and globalisation was carried out. A KAP questionnaire was
conceptualised in a way that enabled recording perceptions of a fairly wide range local identity
features and issues, as outlined hereunder.
KAP Survey
The objective of the KAP survey was to examine the local development stakeholders'
representations of the identity features of territories on which they operate, of local changes
attributable to globalisation, and of the roles individuals and institutions play in valorising, or
not, the specific identity features as local development resources. The working definition of
―local identity‖ in the questionnaire was that "it represents a set of cultural, social, economic,
technological and other specificities of a territory that make it different from other territories".
Such broad, value-free, designation was introduced in order to maximise conditions for the
spontaneity of answers from different stakeholders and, thus, for bringing more light to the issue
of "whose identity or identities are we talking about, and who determines the regional identity of
an area" (Groote et al. 2000: 2). Likewise, in parts of the KAP questionnaire focussed on global
effects on local identity and development, the notion of ―globalisation‖ was generically
introduced as "a growing interdependence, at the world level, of tendencies, problems, values,
life-stiles and decisions". It was hoped that it would minimise possible respondents' perceptions
of the ―global‖ as everything that is ―not local‖, in view of the fact that "depending on the degree
of inclusion-exclusion of each place in the world economy, 'global' can refer to the next city and
region or the actual economy and society" (Hadjimicalis 1994: 241).
In order to facilitate response on such complex concepts and issues, the questions were
closed, with multiple-choice answers, and the concept of local identity was presented in an
extensively disaggregated manner. A step-wise process of disaggregation consisted of
itemisation of local identity features, and creation of a roster of local identity components. The
finally obtained roster consisted of seventy-five components that mirror major traditionally
salient and recently emerging identity features of rural Portugal. In the KAP questionnaire, all
these identity components were clustered in three spheres - socio-cultural, socio-economic and
techno-economic. The KAP questionnaire was intended for local and regional development
experts and activists (LDAs) in rural areas. Out of ninety-two addressed, responses were
obtained from seventy-four LDAs, mostly senior professional staff in local development
agencies in the interior parts of the regions North, Centro, Alentejo and Algarve.
Findings
On local identity
Asked to express their views on the importance of local identity in development of the area
in which they operate, LDAs unanimously supported the idea that "to care about local identity
must be a priority in the local development interventions‖ and a large majority agreed that local
identity ―must become competitive in order to enable local development‖. Likewise, a majority
shared the view that "a strong local identity is an essential prerequisite for local development‖
and also favoured (though not so explicitly) the idea that ―adequate valorisation of local identity
is hardly possible without the intervention of locally recruited local development agents.‖
On the other side, large majority of LDAs disagreed with allegations such as that "it does
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
61
not make sense to worry about local identity in the era of the globalisation" and that
"conservation of traditional values, arts and crafts impedes the modernisation of local economy
and society.‖ A less firm negative response was recorded on the suggestion that ―it is worth
sacrifying the traditional local identity if that would help increasing the economic prosperity of a
local community‖.
The LDAs reacted much less unanimously in supporting or rejecting the suggestion that "the
strength of local identity has to do with the capacity to resist external influences". An even
greater disagreement was on the idea that ―underdevelopment reflects the persistence of negative
characteristics of local identity‖. The most controversial issue, however, seems to be whether
"the persistence of negative characteristics of local identity has to do with internal or external
factors", on which approximately equal shares of affirmative, negative and neutral response were
obtained.
Requested to portray the area in which they operate by indicating the level of presence of
the components of local identity, the majority of LDAs ranked as highest the traditional events,
traditional cultural landscape, constructed rural heritage and traditional culinary art. A sizeable
share of medium ranks (20-40% of responses) was attributed to a wide diversity of salient
identity components such as traditional modes of conviviality, use of traditional public places,
traditional arts and crafts and presence of collective memory and conservative localism, but also
to a wide range of newly emerging features such as the presence of national and international
tourists, degradation of cultural landscape, penetration of urban lifestyles in villages, public
investments in local culture, production of local journals and positive cultural image of the area
of LDAs' operations. The lowest importance (less than 10% of responses) was attributed to
components such as the religiousness of the youth, xenophobia and multiethnic conviviality,
while environmental conscientiousness still does not make part of the local cultural identity.
Regarding the socio-economic sphere of local identity, most LDAs attributed highest ranks
to two most notorious features of contemporary rural Portugal: the aged population and exodus
of the youth. Not surprisingly, given the faded spirit of entrepreneurship in lagging rural areas
(Barreto 2000), insecure employment was ranked third, followed by the medium presence (15-
30% responses) of a mixture of "well established" features such as, assistencialismo (spirit of
passive dependence on external assistance), unemployment, rural-urban development gap,
traditional solidarity relations, on one side and, on the other, new phenomena such as
consumerism, growing social inequalities and pluriactivity. The weakest presence (less than 10%
responses) LDAs attributed to several identity feature that are most usually considered as
strategically important for social progress, such as educational attainment, entrepreneurial spirit
and incentives to retain youth.
Regarding the techno-economic dimension of local identity, no component was considered
outstandingly present by the majority of LDAs. The highest ranks (over 30% responses) belong
to identity features that reflect the still prevailing traditional economic structure, i.e., subsistence
agriculture and small, atomised commerce, but also some important elements of progress, such
as recent investments in domestic water supply and solid waste collection. Medium ranks (10-
30% responses) belong to such diverse components as the SMEs and micro- enterprises,
alternative tourism and leisure industry, as well as the use of old industrial technology and
environmental problems such as water pollution, and forest and soil degradation. The minimum
presence (less than 5% responses) was ascribed to features that are usually regarded as
symptoms of progress and innovation in rural areas, such as modernisation of agricultural
technology, external demand for local agricultural products, increased external investments (both
national and foreign) and organic farming. Finally, the LDAs consider that the adoption of new
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
62
information/communication technologies is not at all a local identity feature.
On globalisation
The only globalisation-related argument on which the majority of the LDAs expressed their
absolute support is "that it is necessary to challenge globalisation at the local level", while on
other issues their reactions diverged in all directions. While extremely opposite attitudes were
expressed on the issue of whether globalisation of communication technologies is beneficial only
to the elites, the two allegations that provoked greatest divergence and indeed scepticism (neutral
answers) among the LDAs are that ―globalisation of markets and competitiveness can contribute
to the affirmation of small-scale economy‖ and that ―globalisation is more in favour than against
the objectives of local development‖. Finally, on the issue of whether ―globalisation creates ever-
greater opportunities for social and economic development in the peripheral regions‖ a near
majority expressed affirmative views, but this issue provoked also important shares of neutral
and negative reactions.
Regarding the effects of specific manifestations of globalisation on Portuguese society and
economy, the LDAs showed greatest unanimity in denouncing the effects of globalisation of
consumption patterns and lifestyles.
A less strong, but clear unanimity was shown also in praising globalisation of
communication technologies and of civic conscientiousness and critical citizenship. A greater
inclination towards positive than negative stand was revealed regarding globalisation of financial
capital and investments, as well as of markets and competitiveness.
In contrast to the above, the views of LDAs diverge very much regarding effects of
globalisation on the geographic area in which they operate. While the majority praises the
globalisation of communication technologies and of civic conscientiousness and critical
citizenship, there is an important share of neutral views on these issues. On the other side, while
no LDA considers local effects of globalisation on consumption patterns and lifestyles as "very
negative", there is a great deal of divergence between those who support and those who are
uncertain or have "more negative than positive" views towards this phenomenon. Greatest level
of uncertainty and indeed division among the LDAs was recorded regarding local effects of
globalisation of financial capital and of markets and competitiveness
It seems that, in general terms, more positive than negative effects of globalisation on the
socio-cultural sphere of identity have been felt in areas in which LDAs operate, particularly
regarding the components such as environmental conscientiousness, cultural production, private
sponsorship of local culture, presence of international tourists, external cultural image and public
investments in local cultur. Most LDAs attributed negative effects to only two components,
namely traditional modes of conviviality and collective memory. Among other more negatively
than positively affected components are cultural landscapes (both, well preserved and degraded),
traditional public spaces and traditional events. Equal shares of LDAs consider penetration of
urban lifestyles in villages as positive and negative effect of globalisation.
Regarding the socio-economic sphere of identity, the LDAs indicated a much smaller
number of positively than negatively affected components. The majority of LDAs reported
positive effects only on the creation of new employment opportunities, higher educational
attainment, people's entrepreneurial spirit and presence of professionals from other regions. The
overwhelming majority attributed negative effects to a wide diversity of traditional and recently
emerged components such as the exodus of the youth, consumerist spirit, insecure employment,
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
63
rural-urban inequality, peoples‘ indebtedness, social crises and conflicts (drugs, crime), social
inequality, unemployment, pockets of poverty and traditional solidarity relations.
Finally, the LDAs attributed more positive, neutral and unknown, than negative effects of
globalisation to identity components in the techno-economic sphere. Most of them associated
positive effects to alternative tourism and leisure industry, the role of financial institutions,
adoption of communication and information technologies, as well as to technological
modernisation of industry and agriculture. Most negatively affected seem to be traditional
commerce, micro-enterprises, old industrial production and agriculture, both subsistence and
commercial. The unknown effects are attributed mostly to recently emerging features, bringing
new dynamics to local economy, such as the big enterprises, supermarkets, organic farming and
tourism and leisure industry.
On development stakeholders
The LDAs reported that, at the time of the survey, their activities were mostly (over 30%)
related to the revalorisation of old features of socio-cultural identity, such as traditional arts and
crafts, traditional events and modes of conviviality and collective memory, as well as to the
raising of local people's self-esteem, and cultural production. It was also recorded that
concentration on tradition-related identity components was very similar to earlier concluded
interventions in which LDAs participated. Major change occurred only regarding the people's
self-esteem, which is currently more represented. The least amount (less than 10%) of the LDAs‘
current engagement had to do with components such as multiethnic conviviality, xenophobia and
conservative localism. It is worth mentioning that over 50% of LDAs expressed their preference
for participating in future development intervention in which exactly these identity components,
in addition to the revalorisation of cultural landscape and increasing environmental
consciousness, would be highly prioritised.
The socio-economic identity components are more present in the current activities of LDAs
than the socio-cultural ones, the highest-ranked being the creation of new employment
opportunities, promotion of people's entrepreneurial spirit, reduction of unemployment,
incentives to retain youth, improving professional qualification, and promotion of pluriactivity. It
was also recorded that in their earlier activities LDAs were less oriented to the socio-economic
sphere and that the focus was quite different, i.e., none of the currently highest-ranking
components was a priority in their earlier interventions. As to the future, most LDAs expressed
greatest interest in participating in local development interventions in which social cohesion,
rural-urban inequalities, consumerist spirit, care for the elderly and exodus of the youth, would
be addressed.
Regarding the techno-economic sphere most LDAs currently participate in interventions that
promote alternative tourism and leisure industry, micro-enterprises and SMEs, commercial
agriculture, as well as communication and information technologies. Similar to the socio-
economic sphere, the priorities of LDAs are nowadays different from the past interventions,
when traditional features such as small commerce and subsistence agriculture were mostly dealt
with. Records also showed that, in the future, most LDAs would like to intervene in the areas of
the techno-economic sphere that have been underrepresented (less than 15%) in both past and
current activities, such as different forms of environmental degradation (forests, soil, air, water),
modernisation of agriculture and industry, attraction of external financing and marketing of local
products.
When requested in the KAP questionnaire to qualify the role of different local individuals as
local development stakeholders in relation to the socio-cultural sphere of identity, LDAs pointed
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
64
to local political leaders as the only outstanding ―promoters of cultural linkages and exchange‖
with the outside world. Furthermore, most of the LDAs considered students, return migrants and
highly skilled professionals as local stakeholders who "easily adopt external cultural innovation",
while small merchants, small and medium farmers, small and medium industrial entrepreneurs
and retirees are the most notable among those who "do not adopt easily external cultural
innovation". Among those who "oppose external and glorify local culture", the most frequently
highlighted were the new residents from other countries.
Regarding the institutional stakeholders, most LDAs consider that true ―promoters of
cultural exchange‖ are only local and regional development agencies, local governments, modern
civic associations, cultural institutions and secondary schools. While just the Catholic Church
and social assistance institutions "do not adopt cultural innovation easily", there are no great
differences among other institutions in respect to the preservation of the socio-cultural sphere of
local identity.
Topophilia - terraphilia interface
An intensive field research on LDAs knowledge, assessment and practice (KAP) regarding
territorial identity as development resource was carried out in 2008 and 2009 in the Oeste (a
NUTS III, NW of the Lisbon Metropolitan Area), a region where the pro-identity rhetoric and
aspirations based on environmental, economic and cultural competitiveness have been placed
high on local development agendas. The research aim was to record the incidence of topophilia
and detect the character of terraphilia among the LDAs. The assumption was that the emergence
of terraphilia, a concept that amalgamates topophilia and a pro-developmental approach
(Oliveira et al, 2010), can reveal the strength and transparency of the lDAs‘ resolve to (re)affirm
local identity. The conceptual-methodological framework applied in this research was the
Identerra Model (Roca & Roca, 2007).
On the basis of the macroscopic (desk) studies of the region as whole, four contiguous counties
of the Oeste were selected as the study area for the field research. The participatory research
method was based on KAP Workshop protocols designed specifically to detect and record the
level and nature of the match (interface) between the experienced (topophilia) and sought
(terraphilia) aspects of the subjective dimension of territorial identity, as defined in the Identerra
Model.
KAP Workshops
A KAP Workshop is based on phased collection and processing (content analysis) of primary
information obtainable from individual and group statements, discussions on the sense of
belonging to a territory, and group appraisals of the experienced and sought qualities of the
constituents of the natural environment, and of social, economic and cultural structures and
dynamics. The initial recording of the participants‘ profiles and their definition of the concrete
local identity features - such as those of natural and built environment, social customs and habits,
arts and crafts - is followed by retrospective and prospective diagnostics of the ―most important‖
positive (―desirable‖) and negative (―unwanted‖) features and of their classification in terms of
duration (―traditional‖ vs. ‖recent‖), stability (‖vanishing‖ vs. ‖resistant‖) and the participants‘
feelings (‖optimism‖ vs. ‖pessimism‖) about their evolution. Furthermore, local, regional,
national and/or supranational institutional and/or individual responsibilities are attributed to the
changing positive and negative qualities of the specific territorial identity features. In the final
stage, the KAP Workshop participants bring forward proposals that stem from their previous
retrospective and prospective diagnostics and prioritisations of problems at stake and from
consensually reached definitions of policy solutions, concrete actions and relevant development
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
65
agents.
The socio-demographic characteristics, professional profile and work experience of forty-seven
KAP Workshop participants from the selected counties of the Oeste guaranteed a collection of
data based on a high level of familiarity with a wide range of territorial identity features and
responsible attitudes toward local development issues. The main findings are summarized
hereunder.
Findings
Diagnostic and prospective attitudes
In responding to the question ―Which are the most important elements that characterize your
county?‖, the participants specified a wide range of landscape- and lifestyle-related elements,
i.e., from those that are part of the objective traditional (e.g.: windmills, gastronomy and built
heritage) and emerging identity (e.g.: new orchards, urban settlements and tourism industry), to
the subjective identities (e.g.: distressed/improved urban environment, traditional/modern social
relations, and fragile/competitive economy). After having identified two aspects that, in their
opinion, most positively and most negatively affect their county of residence, and to classify
them as ―traditional‖ or ‖recent‖ and as ‖resistant‖ or ‖vanishing‖, they declared their
‖pessimism‖ or ‖optimism‖ regarding the future evolution of these aspects. The open-ended
responses were classified and their frequencies recorded in accordance with the landscape- and
lifestyle-related territorial identity features (Nature, Society, Economy and Culture) of the
Identerra Model.
The participants‘ definitions and assessments of priority positive and negative identity features
of their counties can be synthesized as follows:
- the responses are more unanimous about positive identity features, while the negative ones
are very diverse and hard to define in concrete terms – which is a general indication of a high
degree of topophilia shared among the participants;
- the assessment of the natural environment is predominantly positive, although some threats
are differentiated between the more urbanised counties (e.g.: pollution, car traffic) and the more
rural ones (e.g.: waste depository in the Cadaval county); this should be paid attention to by
future local development policies;
- the social issues, frequently referred to as stemming directly from the activity of local agents,
clearly emerge on the positive side when related to community cooperation and assistance
networks, but also on the negative side when related to the rural settings marked by strong social
control (e.g.: resistance of small communities to some aspects of social modernisation);
- the economy is, no doubt, the identity element subject to strong individual and collective
disagreement; on one side, the weak bases of local economies emerged as negatively assessed
features from the point of view of both unemployment and low quality of the entrepreneurial
structures; however, on the other side, the components of economic infrastructure, such as those
that improved accessibilities and potentials for the development of tourism industry, are
positively assessed;
- regarding cultural features, such as, first, the attachment to the legacy of the rural milieu,
intrinsic qualities of local people and gastronomic tradition, and, second, the elements of built
heritage that in every county constitute important spatial fixes, the former ones are assessed
rather negatively though with some hesitance, while the latter ones are eulogized in such a
manner that a high level of topophilia mentioned above is actually reconfirmed.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
66
Experienced identity & development features
The consensual group responses revealed that the common denominators of the positive
priority territorial identity & development features of the participants‘ counties are (i) landscapes
and historic heritage, (ii) natural landscapes, (iii) quality of life, and (v) rurality. As the negative
features the groups consensually prioritized (i) economic development, (ii) social development,
(iii) infrastructure and public services, (iv) human capital development and traditional productive
activity, (v) social and economic development, and (vi) associativism.
The content analyses of the collected information have shown that there is a high level of
correspondence between the experimented subjective identity (topophilia) and the objective
identity established on the basis of the indicators used in the previous macroscopic analysis,
based on the available statistical data. Qualities of the landscapes and of the cultural-historical
heritage and the preserved rurality that amalgamates specificities of natural and cultural
landscapes and lifestyle patterns are the most prominent among the positive territorial identity
aspects. Among the negative ones, weaknesses of the development process, low levels of human
capital development and inadequate accessibility to public services are highlighted.
Sought identity & development features
The components of the experienced identity features, reported by the groups as consensual
priorities were object of further group discussions aimed at the formulation of specific action
proposals for the maximisation of positive and minimisation of negative identity aspects. Every
proposal for action was accompanied by the groups‘ suggestions as to which development agent
should be engaged. The responses referring to action proposals and development agents were
classified according to the character of the envisaged action and the institutional framework,
respectively. All consensually defined positive and negative territorial identity and development
priority issues are intersected with the groups‘ proposals for actions. Also, the proposed actions
are intersected by groups‘ suggestions regarding the agents to be engaged in the concretization of
such actions. This entire exercise (i.e., the KAP Workshop and data processing) enabled to detect
the incidence and nature of terraphilia amongst the participants.
Considering that the sense of terraphilia increases with the capacity to formulate proposals
to solve the weaknesses and to maximize the defined strengths, it was possible to assess the
intensity of terraphilia based on the numbers and kinds of priority issues and on the typology of
suggested actions for the solution of these issues. It was also possible to delineate actions
considered most pertinent/relevant for resolving the weaknesses and maximizing strengths, as
well as to identify agents that should implement these actions and could, at the same time,
become targets of some specific actions aimed at raising their levels of terraphilia (e.g.: activities
of territorial marketing, or at least the sensitization for their involvement in some actions through
pointing to their specific problem solving capacities).
Conclusions
The countrywide survey on the perception of the local identity - globalisation nexus in rural
Portugal showed that the LDAs are quite unanimous in supporting the common pro-identity
rhetoric, but disagree on specific, tangible and more subtle topics and dilemmas, such as, for
example, whether local factors, and not only global ones, cause and perpetrate negative identity
features and underdevelopment, and whether to accept the trade-offs between modernisation and
tradition, at the expense of the latter, in the name of social and economic progress. Most LDAs
are very critical towards their local communities, pointing to the strong presence of identity
features such as assistencialismo, low self-esteem, local conservatism, lack of entrepreneurship
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
67
and low educational attainment, i.e., symptoms of deep rooted socio-economic passivity and
stagnation. It is, therefore, not surprising that the LDAs expressed greatest mutual disagreement,
and indeed scepticism about the prospects for (re)affirmation of local identities as a means of
increasing competitiveness of local culture and economy.
It seems that ―glocalization‖ has not yet significantly contributed to local identities.
According to the LDAs, the traditional local ―fixes‖ and ―horizontalities‖, related to cultural
values, lifestyles, social institutions and economic structure, still dominate over recently
emerging identity components synonymous to global ―flows‖ and ―verticalities‖ (Santos, 1994),
such as consumerism, international and alternative tourism and leisure industry, rurbanization,
integration of external professionals and secondary residents. Likewise, very weak presence of
components such as commercial agriculture, external investments, modern industrial technology
and big firms show that ‗networked regions‖ and local ―embededness‖ of global economic
agents (Agnew 2000; Todtling 1994) are still not a reality. More, the LDAs' assertion that
telematics is not yet notable as an identity component of rural Portugal corroborates similar
findings from other peripheral countries and regions (Ilbery et al. 1995).
All of the most strongly present identity components related to cultural traditions, human
resources and structure of economy seem to have been more negatively than positively affected
by globalisation. In fact, LDAs point to imminent loss of certain features that are commonly
considered as ―uniquely Portuguese‖, thus representing potentially competitive local
development assets (Albino 1997; Benko 2000), such as the traditional cultural landscape,
traditional events and habits and collective memory.
On the other, more reassuring side, some moderately present local identity components -
such as commercial agriculture and external demand for local products, international tourism,
local cultural production and, potentially linked to all those, creation of new employment
opportunities - seem to be much more positively than negatively associated with impacts of
globalisation. Furthermore, it is encouraging that currently very weakly present but desirable,
dynamic, innovative and/or potentially competitive identity components - such as environmental
conscientiousness, people's self-esteem and entrepreneurial spirit, professional qualification,
incentives to retain the youth, modernisation of agricultural technology, organic farming and
external investments, as well as adoption of telematics - also seem to be much more positively
than negatively associated with globalisation.
Regarding the role of LDAs, at least two features need to be stressed. First, compared with
the past, the current development interventions in which LDAs participate are more focused on
the alleviation of negative and assimilation of positive social and economic effects of
globalisation. Second, LDAs expressed readiness for future active engagement in activities
addressing exactly those local identity features that are negatively affected by globalisation and,
at the same time, are underrepresented in their current interventions - such as the care for cultural
landscape, external image, rural-urban cohesion, people's consumerism and indebtedness, exodus
of the youth, adoption of telematics, promotion of external demand for local products,
introduction of organic farming and prevention of forest and soil degradation. In a way, this is in
line with the expectation that ‗territorial mobilisation‘ will emerge in defence of local priorities
against globalisation (Hadjimichalis 1994).
At the local level, the KAP Workshops in the Oeste region showed that the operationalization of
the concept of topophilia into terraphilia facilitates recordings of development agents‘
knowledge and assessment of manifestations of territorial identity, their quests for change, and
their capacity to envisage viable policies and actions that promote affirmation of local identity as
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
68
a development resource. Furthermore, the detected presence of terraphilia could be used as a
lever between topophilia (experienced subjective territorial identity) at present and a new,
development-driven objective (factual) territorial identity in the future. In other words, there is
all reason to believe that the enhancements of landscape- and lifestyle-related features of today‘s
problematic territorial identity features could be achieved through the materialization of
terraphilia of LDAs and its promotion amongst other development stakeholders.
Last but not least, it is worth stressing that to study development agents‘ knowledge, attitudes
and practice in a given territory in the framework of topophilia and terraphilia concepts may be
fundamental for the orientation of planning processes. This is especially important in Portugal
where public participation has been explicitly reinforced in the planning legislation only
recently, since 2007. In this context, more research is needed aimed at further disaggregating and
inventorying diverse components that constitute one‘s affection to specific territorial settings
(topophilia) and keenness to promote territorial development (terraphilia). This, in turn, can yield
tangible results that can help more efficient focussing and implementation of development
policies based on the affirmation of local identity as both a development objective and a
resource.
References
Agnew, J. (1999). `Regions on the Mind does not Equal Regions of the Mind,` Progress in
Human Geography, 23 (1), pp.91-96.
Agnew, J. (2000). `From the Political Economy of Regions to Regional Political Economy.`
Progress in Human Geography, 24, 1. pp.101-110.
Albino, C. (ed.) (1997). Desenvolver Desenvolvendo - Práticas e Pistas para o Desenvolvimento
Local no Alentejo. Messejana: ESDIME C.R.L.
Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (1994). `Living in the Global,` in A. Amin and N. Thrift (eds),
Globalisation, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Badie, B. (1995). La fin des territoires. Paris: Fayard.
Barel, Y. (1986). ´Le social et ses territoires,´ in E. Auriac et R. Brunet (eds.), Espaces, jeux et
enjeux. Paris : Fayard-Diderot.
Barreto, A. (org.) (2000). A situação social em Portugal. Lisboa: ICS
Benko, G. (2000). `La recomposition des espaces,` Agir - Revue géneral de stratégie, 5, pp.11-
18.
Ferrão, J. (2002). Portugal, três geografias em recombinação: Espacialidades, mapas cognitivos e
identidades territoriais, Lusotopie, 2.
Ferrão, J. (2004). Dinâmicas territoriais e trajectórias de desenvolvimento: Portugal 1991-2001.
Lisboa: ICS.
Giddens, A. (1994). Beyond Left and Right — the Future of Radical Politics. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Groote, P. et al. (2000). ´Claiming Rural Identities. In: T Haartsen et al. Claiming Rural
Identities. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Haartsen, T. et al. (2000). Claiming Rural Identities. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Hadjimichalis, C. (1994). ´Global-Local Conflicts: Examples from Southern Europe.´ in A.
Amin and N. Thrift (eds.). Globalisation, Institutions and Regional Development in
Europe. Oxford University Press.
Haesbaert, R. (2004). Mito da Desterritorialização. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Bertrand Brasil.
Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
69
Heelas, P. et al. (1999). Detraditionalization: Critical Reflections on Authority and Identity at a
Time of Uncertainty. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Ilbery, B. et al. (1995). ´Telematics and Rural Development: Evidence from a Survey of Small
Businesses in the European Union. European Urban and Regional Studies. 2. pp. 55-67.
Lefevre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. London: Basil Blackwell.
Massey, D. (1991). ‗A global sense of place‘, Marxism Today, June, pp.24-9. (reprinted in
Massey, D. (2004). Space, place and gender. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp. 46-56).
Massey, D. and Jess, P. eds. (1995). A Place in the World? Places, Cultures and Globalisation.
Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Oliveira, J. A., and Roca, Z. (2005). Plano de Acção para o Desenvolvimento do Concelho da
Pampilhosa da Serra (Vol. 2). Loures: Vigaprintes.
Oliveira, J. A., Roca, Z. and Leitão, N. (2010). Territorial Identity and Development: From
Topophilia to Terraphilia. Land Use Policy, 27(3).
Roca, Z. (1998). `Positive Experiences in Increasing the Involvement of Young Men and
Women in Rural Development in Portugal,` in Youth and Rural Development in Europe:
Policy Issues and Responses. Rome: FAO.
Roca, Z. (1999). `Local Development Contexts and Agents: An Analytical Model and
Experience from Portugal,` in I. Bowler, Ch. Bryant, and A. Firmino (eds.) Progress in
Research on Sustainable Rural Systems. Lisbon: IGU/CEGPR/UNL.
Roca, Z. (1999a). Local Development Initiatives and Agents: Relevance of Portuguese
Experience for the European Countries in Transition. Proceedings of the Third Moravian
Geographical Conference, CONGEO‘99 Regional Prosperity and Sustainability, Brno:
Institute of Geonics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
Roca, Z. (2004). `Affirmation of Regional Identity between Rhetoric and Reality: Evidence from
Portugal,` in E. Boneschansker et al. (eds.), Cultural Uniqueness and Regional Economy.
Leeuwarden, Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy.
Roca, Z., & Roca, M.N.O. (2007). Affirmation of Territorial Identity: A Development Policy
Issue. Land Use Policy, 24(2).
Rose, G. (1995). `Place and Identity: A Sense of Place,` in D. Massey and P. Jess (eds.) A Place
in the World? Places, Cultures and Globalisation. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Santos, M. et al (ed.) (1994). Território, Globalização e Fragmentação. São Paulo: Editora
Hucitec
Todtling, F. (1994). `The Uneven Landscale of Innovation Poles: Local Embeddedness and
Global Networks,` in A. Amin and N. Thrift (eds.), Globalisation, Institutions and
Regional Development in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press / The Open
University.
Tuan, Y.F. (1990). Topophilia – A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes and Values.
New York: Columbia University Press / Morningside Edition.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
70
Conclusion
On March 1-3, 2011 the Regional Seminar for CIS countries ―Safeguarding World
Heritage in the Context of New Global Challenges‖ was held in Moscow. The Russian Research
Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev (the Heritage Institute)
organized this event with the support of the UNESCO Moscow Office for Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation.
The proposal to call an international seminar for CIS countries on the World Heritage
Sites management in the context of new global challenges was initially voiced at the conference
on the 20th
Anniversary of Russia‘s World Heritage Sites Inscription (17-19 November 2010,
Moscow Kremlin Cathedrals Museum-Reserve).
Overall theme of the seminar was the multidisciplinary research for safeguarding and
management of the World Heritage Sites in the context of new global challenges (such as climate
change, uncontrolled urbanization and tourism development). The main goal of the seminar was
to strengthen the regional scientific and informational potential for the implementation of the
UNESCO World Heritage Convention, for better management of the World Heritage Sites and
foresight activities against the new global challenges. The following scientific and pragmatic
tasks have been identified for discussion by the Programme Committee:
– data assessment on the World Heritage Sites preservation in the CIS countries;
– identification of priorities and resources for foresight activities in the sphere of
World Heritage Sites management and enhancement;
– promotion of cultural landscape as a key heritage site and its role in the sustainable
development in the East European region;
– promotion of regional exchange of good practices in the heritage preservation;
– networking for best practices introduction and broader regional cooperation.
To prepare implementation of these tasks under the seminar concept development there
has been elaborated a specific questionnaire and data and responses from the CIS delegations
have been collected. Based on this data analysis of the information available has been made and
relevant publication is included into the proceedings of the seminar.
Effective preparation of the seminar was also based on the use of Russian-language
translations for the baseline UNESCO documents prepared by the Heritage Institute and
published at its web-site www.heritage-institute.ru: World Heritage List (regularly updated since
2009), List of Intangible World Heritage (update of 2010). Additionally to all participants there
were disseminated the materials translated into Russian language from ―The Enhancing Our
Heritage Toolkit‖ brochure (UNESCO, 2008, 103 pp.) and the recent publications of the
scientific proceedings of the Heritage Institute - periodical in Russian ―Nasledie i sovremennost‖
(Heritage and Modernity, issues 15 and 17 printed in 2009 and 2011).
Number of registered participants of the seminar who took an active part in its plenary
and other sessions was over 70 persons; the audience totaling 100 persons attended various
seminar events. Main input to the seminar was ensured through the participation of the
delegations from the World Heritage Sites in Russia and the CIS countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine), representatives of the relevant management bodies
(ministries and agencies), research and public organizations and academics and experts working
in the sphere of cultural and natural heritage conservation. Participating in the seminar were over
30 persons from Moscow, 20 experts from 11 countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Denmark, France, Latvia, Moldova, Portugal, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine), over 20 participants
from different cities and regions in Russia (Arkhangelsk, Gorno-Altaisk, Irkutsk, Kazan,
Mozhaisk, Nizhny Novgorod, Petrozavodsk, St-Petersburg, Tula, Yaroslavl et al.), representing
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
71
the state bodies, scientific and educational institutions, public and non-governmental
organizations. Some of them have made presentations, and all took part in the discussions and
elaboration of the recommendations and proceedings of the seminar.
Russian Ministry for Culture and the State Duma Committee for Culture acted as co-
organizers of the regional seminar held in the Heritage Institute. The following relevant agencies
have delivered organizational and programme support: Scientific Council under the Presidium of
the Russian Academy of Sciences, Commission on Culture under the Council of Federation,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of Regional Development
and Ministry of Science and Education. Participants from the educational institutions represented
the following universities: the Lomonosov Moscow State University, Yaroslavl State University,
the State University for Humanitarian Sciences, and Russian International Academy for Tourism,
a member of the UNITWIN network for sustainable tourism development. Key expert
presentations were delivered at the seminar by the representatives from the Russian Academy of
Sciences - Institute of Geography, Russian Research Institute of Art Science, Institute for
Historic Cities Reconstruction, Russian Geographic Society, and International Geographic
Union. It is to be appreciated that many of the public organizations and associations (Natural
Heritage Protection Fund, All-Russia Society for Protection of Historic and Cultural Monuments,
Moscow Society for Architectural Heritage Protection, Russian Estate Studies Society et al.)
provided opportunities for their own representatives to take part in the event and submitted
commentaries to the draft recommendations of the seminar.
Opening ceremony and main sessions of the seminar were held in the Heritage Institute
on the 1st and 2
nd March; the plenary meeting on March 3
rd took place in the Moscow State
Integrated Art and Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve which
supported seminar as a partner and co-organized the final seminar events.
Simultaneous translation service was organized by the Heritage Institute for the opening
and plenary sessions during the first day of seminar. The consecutive translation for foreign
experts from Russian into English was provided during seminar sessions on the 2nd
and 3rd
March. Translation into Russian of all preliminary seminar documentation and key expert
presentations were executed by invited qualified interpreters as well as by Heritage Institute staff
members. Thanks to the partners and the existing European and Russian expert network the
agenda of the seminar and its events were successfully organized.
In the seminar sessions there took part and made their presentations and commentaries
more than 40 participants. Welcoming speeches were delivered by the Director of UNESCO
Moscow Office for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian
Federation, Mr. Dendev Badarch, the RF Deputy Minister for Culture Mr. Andrey Busygin and
Chairman of the RF State Duma Committee for Culture Mr. Grigory Ivliev.
Key expertise and papers were presented by 15 specialists recommended by the national
commissions for UNESCO from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova, the
Russian Federation and the Ukraine.
Participants‘ attention concentrated on the topical issues, indicated as the first two
sessions of the plenary meeting of the seminar: New Global Challenges and their Impact on
World Heritage Preservation and Cultural Landscape as a Heritage Site.
The key lecture of the first session by the programme specialist from the World Heritage
Center Mr. Herve Barre presented the UNESCO Strategies and Programmes for heritage
preservation and sustainable tourism development in the context of new global challenges.
Describing the case studies and statistical data on the dramatic tourism development in the
world, he accentuated two major missions of the World Heritage Convention (1972) – a public
access to the site and heritage site conservation regime, that are in contradiction to each other. In
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
72
these conditions tourism as a tool for local or regional socio-economic development might cause
the detrimental damage to the heritage site or its surroundings.
The key expert presentation by the Deputy Director of the Historic Cities Reconstruction
Institute Dr. Vladimir Krogius considered urbanization process vs. heritage preservation in the
situation when accelerated land privatization generates low quality decision-making in the sphere
of regional and urban planning and management. Another expert, the Deputy Director of the
Institute of Geography under Russian Academy of Sciences, Prof. Arkady Tishkov spoke of the
climate change threatening heritage site preservation and/or existence. He distinguished three
fundamental threats at the global level: rise of the ocean level and global temperature and
abnormal fluctuations of precipitation. For mitigation of these threats there was proposed an
inventory of the risks, allocation of funding for adaptation measures, differentiated monitoring,
forecasting of the on-going transformations and related compensations and overall strategy and
action plan for heritage sites preservation.
Mr. Grigory Ivliev, the Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Culture, has delivered
the leading expert presentation in this session. In his paper he specifically outlined such global
challenges as private property enhancement and state property privatization, intensification of
the information flows and rapid economic development in the sphere of cultural policy and
legalization. Mr. Ivliev stressed in this connection that the updated Federal Law 73 ‖On cultural
heritage objects (monuments of history and culture) of the peoples of the Russian Federation‖
will ensure proper protection of the historic and cultural reserves thus effectively safeguarding
the registered World Cultural Heritage Sites in Russia.
At the session ―Cultural Landscape as a Heritage Site‖ two Russian experts made their
presentations: Dr. Vladimir Gritsenko, Director of the Kulikovo Battlefield Museum-reserve
(The Role of Museum-reserves in the Cultural Landscape Protection) and Dr. Marina Kuleshova,
Head of the Department on Legal Issues of the Cultural Landscape Management (Cultural
Landscapes in the World Heritage List). There should be specially noted interesting
presentations by invited international experts in the sphere of cultural landscape research.
Joint presentation by Prof. Jorgen Primdahl, from Copenhagen University, and Prof.
Simon Swaffield, from New Zealand Lincoln University, contained comparative analysis of the
global transformations of rural cultural landscape in various agricultural zones discovering main
driving forces along with the management challenges in the rapidly changing global economy
with due consideration of the multiple operational programs and research projects.
Another expert lecture on cultural identity and cultural landscape evolution was presented
by Prof. Zoran Roca from Lusofona University in Lisbon. In cooperation with his colleagues
professor extensively researched community participation in the social and economic
development of the rural regions in Portugal. On the support by the European Landscape
Convention to the cultural landscape management spoke Ms Pavlina Misikova, National
Coordinator of the European Landscape Convention, from the Slovakian Ministry of
Environment. All presenters at this session serve as international experts in the network of the
European Landscape Convention under the Council of Europe.
Next day of the seminar was dedicated to the practical issues of the World Heritage Site
management and monitoring. During interactive sessions the representatives of the CIS countries
delegations took the floor in the following order: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, the Republic of
Moldova, the Ukraine, and the Russian Federation. After the break there was organized a Round
Table discussion moderated by the researchers from the Lomonosov Moscow State University
and the Heritage Institute. Seminar discussions, accompanied by the heritage sites presentations,
displayed a variety of opinions and stimulated exchange of ideas, experience and research
outputs.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
73
Plenary meeting on March 3, 2011 ―Comprehensive Impact Assessment Case Study‖ has
finalized the scientific program. Ms. Lyudmila Kolesnikova, Director General of the Moscow
State Integrated Art and Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve
hosted this last day of the seminar. She and her Ukrainian colleague Ms. Marina Gromova,
Director General of the National Kyev-Pechery Historical and Cultural Reserve in Kyev opened
session with the key lectures on the integrated management policy and solution of the monitoring
problems at the World Heritage Sites in the highly urbanized environment of the capital city.
Exchange of views that took place at the seminar allowed to attain both conceptual
understanding and get practical acquaintance with the international experience of the operational
development of the idea of the cultural landscape as a heritage site. Lectures delivered by the
invited international key experts and papers presented by well known scholars, specialists,
government agents and activists demonstrated high interest to the wide scope of problems and
their solutions by various research and policy-making institutions and organizations in the region
of the CIS countries.
Fundamental discussion of the World Heritage preservation and management in the
context of new global challenges resulted in finding necessary suggestions and solutions,
reflected in the adopted final document – the Seminar Recommendations. During the discussion
at the concluding plenary session, there were submitted many proposals on various issues and the
recommendations were preliminary adopted in the form of a draft document, elaborated by the
members of the Organizing Committee. The final version of the recommendations was approved
after substantial editing work based on comments and proposals received via communication
with the participants. In particular, final text of the recommendation mentions that World
Heritage Sites preservation policy shall be based on a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach
reflecting the integrity of cultural and natural heritage while fostering cultural and natural
diversity in all state parties of the World Heritage Convention. Subsequently, cultural landscape
as a heritage site shall play a key role in this policy and landscape approach shall secure the
integrity and interrelation of all heritage items with their environment. The operational tool for
heritage preservation along with the legal, organizational and engineering methods shall be
ensured through the comprehensive and scientifically sound integrated monitoring system – to
monitor the state of the heritage properties and sites including their cultural and natural
environments. The decision-making, based on this monitoring along with the essential foresight
activities shall minimize the impact of the destructive factors and processes. The outcomes of the
monitoring shall be part of the World Heritage Sites preservation and utilization process to
secure the development of their continuing adaptive management. Participants of the seminar
also proposed that for introduction of the cultural landscape approach into the heritage
preservation practice a number of actions shall take place including establishment of the
coordinating cultural landscape research center for the CIS countries on the basis of the Heritage
Institute.
This center might be organized for coordination of the research and development on
identification, promotion, preservation and management of the national and World Heritage sites
in the CIS countries and for improved implementation of the UNESCO Conventions –
―Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage‖ and ―Safeguarding of Intangible
Cultural Heritage‖. The Heritage Institute is already implementing some of the specific tasks of
such center in the Russian Federation - these are the conceptual and practical guidance and
advice, as well as scientific assessment of the projects on heritage and cultural landscape
preservation and management, coordination of the activities of the museum-reserves and spatial
heritage sites. In the information sphere it is very important to provide translations of the vital
conceptual documents and information newsletters by UNESCO into national languages. This
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
74
linguistic task is particularly relevant to the management plan developments and periodical
reports; establishment and promotion of the web pages for specific World Heritage sites;
development of a shared database at the Heritage Institute web-site for the international
directives and guidelines in the sphere of heritage identification, research, preservation and
operational management (including cultural and natural phenomena and sites, tangible and
intangible items and phenomena, architectural, archeological, submarine cultural heritage,
landscape and other sites); establishment of the regularly updated databank on national legal
documents relating to the World Heritage Sites in the CIS countries (strategies, programmes,
administration regulations, legal statutes, management plans etc.). Educational activities might
include the trainings and regular meetings in the CIS countries for research updates, sharing
outcomes and planning further research coordination and development on the basis of the model
World Heritage sites; elaboration of the management plans, monitoring and reporting, adaptive
management. Eventually there could be elaborated and launched joint interdisciplinary research
projects in the sphere of cultural landscape and spatial heritage sites preservation, including case
studies on the model cultural landscapes with the participation of the international experts;
revision and improvement of the nomination documents for the tentative lists; comprehensive
assessments and integrated analyses of various problems at the inscribed heritage sites with
participation of the international experts etc.
It is noteworthy to mention the other important proposals voiced by the seminar
participants or communicated during the elaboration of the recommendations: improvement of
the national legislation for the practical actions such as restoration and reconstruction (for
example, the tenders for state-funded projects in Russia are to be improved drastically to ensure
the highly professional level of project activities and implementation); the rehabilitation and
maintenance of the monuments and landscapes; proactive measures for conservation of the
universal outstanding values at the cultural and natural World Heritage sites; improvement of the
spatial planning procedures; elaboration and operational functioning of the management plans in
the protected lands; coordination of activities and collaboration of all stakeholders in the
protected zones and at the different administration levels; monitoring of the economic situation
and land- and resource use regimes; and finally, the continuous comprehensive research and
monitoring of the heritage sites with regular expert meetings and recommendations for relevant
follow up actions.
For efficient open discussion and news coverage the web page of the regional seminar for
CIS countries ―Safeguarding World Heritage in the Context of New Global Challenges‖ was
designed at the Heritage Institute web-site www.heritage-institute.ru where information update
was taking place on a continuous basis. Press-release on the seminar results and its
recommendations in English were published at the official UNESCO site http://www.unesco.org
in the section on regional events.
The electronic version of the seminar proceedings includes all papers and presentations
submitted by the seminar participants for publication; computer presentations are posted
according to the seminar programme, while individual author papers are published in the special
section in the alphabetical order.
With the support from the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation there was
organized a special cultural programme for seminar participants. It incorporated the opening
ceremony of the research exposition on Solovetsky Archipelago World Heritage Site entitled
―Solovki – a Miracle of the Russian North‖, concert of the Saucejas folk group (intangible
heritage of the folk music tradition in Latvia), the Vakhtangov Theatre drama performance, visits
to the museum exhibitions and restoration workshops and field excursion in the Kolomenskoe
Museum-Reserve (with the visit to the Ascension Church – the World Heritage Site).
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
75
Seminar participants during the closing session and in their further e-mail comments on
the event organization expressed the hope that the regional seminar and its recommendations will
contribute to the mutual understanding between researchers and specialists with diverse social
and cultural views in the countries with the similar political and economic situations. In
conclusion we would like to express our sincere gratitude to the vital financial and organizational
support delivered by the UNESCO office in Moscow and the World Heritage Center in Paris.
Professor Yury Vedenin, Director of the Heritage Institute
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
76
Recommendations
70 participants from 12 countries took part in the Regional seminar for CIS countries
«Safeguarding World Heritage in the Context of New Global Challenges». It was organized and
conducted from 1 to 3 March, 2011 by the Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural
Heritage, named after Dmitry Likhachev, in partnership with the Kolomenskoe State Integrated
Art and Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve with the financial
support of the UNESCO Cluster Office in Moscow for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the
Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation.
The seminar was welcomed by Mr. Andrey Busygin, Deputy Minister of Culture of the
Russian Federation, Mr. Grigory Ivliev, Chairman of the Russian State Duma Committee on
Culture and Mr. Dendev Badarch, Director of the UNESCO Office in Moscow, UNESCO
Representative in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Republic of Moldova and the Russian
Federation.
The objectives of the Seminar included the identification and foresight of priorities for
activities in the sphere of World Heritage Sites management; the promotion of cultural landscape
as key heritage sites and its role in sustainable development; the encouragement of regional
exchange of good practices in the protection of Cultural and Natural World Heritage and
networking for introducing best practices and expanding research cooperation.
Following international and Regional CIS expert presentations and rich debates the
participants explored multidisciplinary research for the protection and management of the World
Heritage Sites in the context of new global challenges (such as climate change, uncontrolled
urbanization and unsustainable tourism development) in the following CIS countries – Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Republic of Moldova, Russia and the Ukraine.
Preamble
Acknowledging both achievements and impediments in the implementation of the World
Heritage Convention,
Aiming to find an effective solution for the most imminent preservation problems of specific
Cultural and Natural World Heritage Sites (WHS), by including both comprehensive and
participatory decision-making,
Applying a comprehensive interdisciplinary approach thoroughly considering natural and man-
made impacts and the existing interrelation and interactions between cultural and natural sites,
Noting both common Site management problems and new global challenges threatening the
Outstanding Universal Values of the World Heritage,
Considering the rich experience of the international community, and the specific situation in
each State Party in the World Heritage Convention, in the field of national heritage preservation
and management,
The participants decided to make the following recommendations:
1. Strengthening Conceptual Foundations for the Protection of the World Heritage
Request that the stakeholders involved in heritage preservation at local, national and
international level:
1.1. Ensure that WHS preservation policy be based on a comprehensive
interdisciplinary approach reflecting the integrity of Cultural and Natural Heritage
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
77
while fostering cultural and natural diversity. Subsequently, cultural landscape as a
heritage site plays a key role in this policy and landscape approach secures the
integrity and interrelation of all heritage items with their environment.
1.2. Provide an operational tool for WHS preservation through comprehensive and
scientifically sound integrated monitoring system – to monitor the state of the
heritage properties and sites including both their cultural and natural environments
and through an operational decision-making to mitigate the negative impacts of
various destructive factors and processes. The outcomes of the monitoring shall be
part of the WHS preservation and utilization process to secure the development of
their continuing adaptive management.
1.3. Ensure that WHS preservation activities be founded on the research, findings and
implementation of the best available techniques and practices derived from the
international experience, while including the study, the adaptation and the
involvement of the concepts and principal approaches found in the baseline
documents published by the UNESCO World Heritage Center, ICOMOS, ICCROM
and IUCN.
2. Improving of the World Heritage Sites Management
Request that the governments, management bodies and authorities of the CIS countries:
2.1. Improve their respective legal system in harmonization with the management and
planning regulations for quality preservation of cultural and natural heritage sites,
including World Heritage Sites;
2.2. Increase the level of financial support for the World Heritage Sites, by
establishing relations with the various bodies such as the UNESCO Partnership
Program, and with potential funding agencies;
2.3. Ensure direct involvement of the local communities in the decision-making
process at the WHS, establish a creative dialogue with all stakeholders to optimize
the management system and prevent conflict situations;
2.4. Improve information support for the WHS based on new information technologies
(development of the WHS web-sites, printed newsletters etc.); provide translated
versions of management plans, periodic reporting and UNESCO mission reports in
national languages;
2.5. Stimulate public education and awareness on WHS; develop cultural tourism
activities and infrastructure in the buffer zones and/or outside the WHS borders
based on the UNESCO recommendations and WH Convention requirements.
3. Undertaking Foresight Activities in the Context of New Global Challenges
Request that the expert community, research organizations and national governments in
coordination with the UNESCO World Heritage Center:
3.1. Create an international expert group for joint research, elaboration of ideas,
conceptual and technological approaches and exchange of the relevant information;
3.2. Inventory risks and threats for the WHS generated by the climate change,
urbanization and tourist pressures;
3.3. Launch projects that forecast of the WHS state of conservation in the context of
new global challenges in order to ensure the proper prevention and mitigation
measures;
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
78
3.4. Develop a system of the preventive measures for WHS adaptation to rapid climate
change on the basis of innovative methods and new technologies;
3.5. Undertake the risk assessments of WHS key indicator in short-, medium- and
long-term perspective;
3.6. Elaborate national strategies and action plans for conservation, protection,
restoration and sustainable use, tourism in particular, of the cultural and natural
heritage sites in the CIS countries.
3.7. Support the elaboration of the new UNESCO recommendation concerning heritage
preservation and the sustainable development of tourism and promote its
dissemination and implementation in the CIS countries.
4. Introducing the Cultural Landscape Approach to the WHS Preservation
Request that the scientific community of the CIS countries, national governments and the
UNESCO World Heritage Center:
4.1. Facilitate joint cooperation and coordination of the efforts for research on cultural
landscape preservation and management and its role in spatial planning and
sustainable development;
4.2. Support the establishment of the coordinating research center for the CIS countries
on the basis of the Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage
named after Dmitry Likhachev;
4.3. Create a shared database in the sphere of cultural landscape research, preservation
and operational management;
4.4. Provide organizational and financial support for the regular meetings for compiling
research activities, sharing outcomes and planning further research coordination
and development;
4.5. Elaborate and launch joint interdisciplinary research projects in the sphere of
cultural landscape and spatial heritage sites preservation, including case studies on
the model cultural landscapes with the participation of the international experts;
4.6. Assist in World Heritage Center missions at the WHS to monitor cultural
landscapes and spatial heritage sites preservation;
4.7. Organize professional training on cultural landscape and spatial heritage sites
preservation and management with invitation of the international experts;
4.8. Support the elaboration of the new UNESCO Recommendations on the historic
urban landscape and the new Convention on conservation of landscapes and
promote their dissemination and implementation in the CIS countries.
The Participants would like to express gratitude to the Heritage Institute, the State
Integrated Museum-Reserve in Kolomenskoe, the UNESCO Moscow Office and the World
Heritage Center for organizational and financial support of the seminar and are confident that
the exchange of practical experience and research outcomes will strongly support safeguarding
national heritage and World Heritage Sites in the participating CIS states and will promote
scientific and practical cooperation in this sphere.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
79
Press-release
The agenda of the Regional Seminar held in Moscow, Russian Federation, from 1 to 3
March, 2011 addressed the strengthening of the regional scientific and informational potential
for the implementation of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention (1972), better management
of the World Heritage Sites and foresight activities against new global challenges, such as
climate change, uncontrolled urbanization and unsustainable tourism development.
The leading experts on preservation, management and promotion of the World Heritage
sites from Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation and
the Ukraine have participated in the event, as well as representatives of the European countries.
The participants (70 persons from 12 countries) succeeded in exchanging experience and
information and focused discussions on the existing problems encountered in the management of
cultural and natural heritage sites in the region.
As a result of the event, comparative assessment of the World Heritage Sites preservation
in the CIS countries is to be conducted, scientific and information support for the regional
cooperation network on heritage and cultural landscape preservation provided and expanded, and
institutional capacity building for regional cooperation strengthened. Comprehensive
documentation, including recommendations are being elaborated and will be provided to the
governing bodies for the subsequent reactions on cultural landscape and heritage management
and further implementation in the national system of the heritage protection.
This seminar has been organized by the UNESCO Office in Moscow in partnership with
the Russian Research Institute for Cultural and Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev
and the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
80
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Armenia
1. POGHOSYAN Vladimir
Acting Director, Agency for Historical
Environment Protection and Historical and
Cultural Museum-Reserves of the Ministry of
Culture of Republic of Armenia, Yerevan
2. SARGSYAN Armenak
Chief, Department of Cultural Heritage and
Traditional Crafts of the Ministry of Culture
of Republic of Armenia, Yerevan
3. SIMONYAN Hakob
Director, Scientific Research Centre of
Historical and Cultural Heritage of the
Ministry of Culture of Republic of Armenia
hakobsimonyan@yahoo.
com
Azerbaijan
4. GULIYEV Anar A.
Head, Scientific Researching and
International Relations Department,
Administration of State Historical-
Architectural Reserve ―Icherisheher‖ under
the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of
Azerbaijan
az
5. KHALILOV Mubariz
Director, Pyr Hussein Hanegu National
Reserve, Ministry of Culture and Tourism of
the Republic of Azerbaijan
bakuworldforum2011@
gmail.com
6. MAMMADOV Fazil
Senior Consultant, Planning, Restoration and
Assessment Division of the Cultural Heritage
Department of the Ministry of Culture and
Tourism of the Republic of Azerbaijan
Belarus
7. CHARNYAUSKI Igor
Head, Department on Historic and Cultural
Heritage Management and Restoration,
Ministry of Culture, Minsk
8. KLIMOV Sergey
Director, National Historic and Cultural
Nesvizh Reserve
9. STASHKEVICH Alla
Head, Department for Historic and Cultural
Heritage Management, Institute for Culture,
Minsk
Denmark
10. PRIMDAHL Jorgen
Professor, Centre for Forest & Landscape,
University of Copenhagen [email protected]
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
81
Republic of Moldova
11. CIOCANU Sergius Chief, Department of Cultural Heritage,
Ministry of Culture RM, Chisinau [email protected]
12. POSTICA Georghe
Vice-Minister, Ministry of Culture, Chisinau [email protected]
13. TABAC Silviu
Vice-Director, Institute of Cultural Heritage,
Academy of Sciences of Moldova, Chisinau [email protected]
Portugal
14. ROCA Zoran
Professor, Territory, Culture and
Development Research Center, Lusófona
University, Lisbon
15. ROCA Maria de
Nazare
Professor, Research Center for Geography
and Regional Planning, Nova University,
Lisbon
Russian Federation
16. ANANICHEV Konstantin
Expert on European Landscape Convention,
Moscow District Architecture Agency,
Moscow
konstantin-
17. ANDREEVA Evgeniya
Chief, Department on Living Traditional
Culture, Heritage Institute, Moscow [email protected]
18. APANASIK Oleg
Director, Pribaikalsky National Park, Irkutsk [email protected]
19. AVERIYANOVA
Elvy
Director, Historic, Kizhi Architectural and
Ethnographic Museum-reserve, Petrozavodsk
20. BUSYGIN Andrey
Deputy Minister, Ministry of Culture of the
Russian Federation, Moscow
21. BUTORIN Aleksey
President, Natural Heritage Protection Fund,
Moscow [email protected]
22. CHIZHOV Mikhail Consultant, Intergovernmental Foundation for
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Cooperation (IFESCCO), Moscow
23. DAKHINA Evgeniya
Senior Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Moscow [email protected]
24. DIANOVA Natalya
Deputy Director, Center for International
Programs and Projects, Russian International
Academy for Tourism, Moscow
25. DROZDOV Alexander Leading Researcher, Institute of Geography,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow [email protected]
26. DZHANDZHUROVA
Elena
Chair, Tourism Department, Institute of
Tourism and Hospitality (ITIG), Editor-in-
Chief, ―Modern Problems of Service and
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
82
Tourism‖ Magazine, Moscow
27. GONCHAROVA
Nataliya
Advisor, Intergovernmental Foundation for
Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Cooperation (IFESCCO), Moscow
28. GORBUNOV Alexander Deputy Director on Research, Borodino
Battlefield State War and History Museum-
reserve, Kaluga district
29. GORBYLEVA Elena
Chief Specialist, Department of Development,
―Yasnya Polyana‖ Museum Reserve, village
of Yasnya Polyana
30. GRITSENKO Vladimir
Director, Kulikov Battlefield Museum
Reserve [email protected]
31. IVLIEV Grigory
Chair, Russian Federation State Duma
Committee on Cultural Affairs, Moscow [email protected]
32. KALMYKOV Igor
Director, Altaisky State Natural Biosphere
Reserve, Gorno-Altaisk [email protected]
33. KALUTSKOV Vladimir
Leading Research Fellow, Department of
Physical Geography and Landscape Science,
Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Moscow
34. KHAKIMOV Rafail
Institute of History named after S.Mardzhani,
Tatarstan Academy of Sciences, Kazan [email protected]
35. KHRUSTALEVA
Marina
Chair of the Board, Moscow Architecture
Preservation Society, Moscow
36. KOLBOWSKY
Eugene
Chair of the Geography Department,
Yaroslavl State Univeristy, Yaroslavl
37. KOLESNIKOVA
Lyudmila
Director General, The Moscow State
Integrated Art and Historical, Architectural
and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve
38. KOLOSSOV Vladimir
Vice-President, International Geographical
Union, Moscow [email protected]
m
39. KRAVCHINA Lyubov
Chief, Department of Development, ―Yasnaya
Polyana‖ Museum-Reserve, village of
Yasnaya Polyana
40. KROGIUS Vladimir
Director, Institute for Historical Cities
Reconstruction (INRECON), Moscow [email protected]
41. KULESHOVA Marina
Chief, Department of Cultural Landscape
Management, Heritage Institute, Moscow
42. LAGUSEVA Nadezhda
Deputy Head of the UNESCO Chair, Russian
International Academy of Tourism, Moscow
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
83
43. LAPTEVA Galina
Expert, Regional Inspection for Monitoring of
the Historic and Cultural Monuments
Preservation, Arkhangelsk
lapteva@dvinaland@ru
44. LYUBIMTSEV
Aleksandr
Chief Guardian of the Immobile Monuments,
«Kizhi» Historic, Architectural and
Ethnographic Museum-reserve, Petrozavodsk
45. MAKOVETSKY Igor
President, Russian National Committee for
World Cultural and Natural Heritage,
Moscow
46. MAKSAKOVSKY
Nikolay
Chief, Department for Unique Natural Areas,
Heritage Institute, Moscow [email protected]
47. MIKHAILOVA Ksenia Project Coordinator, Natural Heritage
Protection Fund, Moscow [email protected]
48. NERONOV Valery
Vice-President, UNESCO ―Man and the
Biosphere‖ (MAB) International
Coordinating Committee; Deputy Chair,
Russian Committee on MAB Program,
Moscow
49. NEZVITSKAYA Tatyana
Deputy Director, Department on Historic and
Natural Heritage Preservation, «Kizhi»
Historic, Architectural and Ethnographic
Museum-reserve, Petrozavodsk
50. ORDZHONIKIDZE
Grigory
Executive Secretary, Commission of the
Russian Federation for UNESCO, Moscow [email protected]
51. PETROVA Tatyana
Deputy Head of the Department, Ministry for
Natural Resources, Moscow [email protected]
52. PROVOROVA Irina Leading Researcher, Heritage Institute,
Moscow [email protected]
53. PUTRIK Yury
Chair of the Tourism Department, Moscow
Humanitarian University, Moscow
54. RODOMAN
Boris
Leading Researcher, Heritage Institute under
RF Ministry for Culture, Moscow
55. SEMENOVA Tamara Senior Researcher, Heritage Institute,
Moscow
56. SHULGIN Pavel
Deputy Director, Heritage Institute, Ministry
of Culture, Moscow [email protected]
57. STOLYAROV
Vyacheslav
Aide to Vicar for Heritage Preservation,
Saviour Transfiguration Solovetsky
Monastery, Moscow
58. TISHKOV Arkady
Deputy Director, Institute of Geography
under Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow
59. TSIPRIS Inga Researcher, Moscow Union of Architects,
Moscow
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
84
60. TURCHIN Taras
Deputy Director, Mikhail Sholokhov Estate
(Vyoshenskoe) Museum Reserve,
Vyoshenskoe settlement
61. VEDENIN Yury
Director, Heritage Institute under RF Ministry
of Culture, Moscow [email protected]
62. ZAVYALOVA Nadezhda
Senior Research Fellow, Heritage Institute,
Moscow [email protected]
63. YEREMEEV Alexander Deputy Director, Heritage Institute under
RFMinistry of Culture, Moscow [email protected]
Slovakia
64. MISIKOVA Pavlina
National Coordinator for the European
Landscape Convention, Ministry of
Environment, Bratislava
ov.sk
Ukraine
65. BOBROVSKY Timur
Deputy Director, Research Institute for
Monument Preservation, Kyev [email protected]
66. BUYUKLI Maria
Chief, Department of International
Cooperation and Protocol, National Kyev-
Pechery Historic and Cultural Reserve
67. GROMOVA Marina
Director General, National Kyev-Pechery
Historic and Cultural Reserve
68. SERDYUK Elena Director, Research Institute for Monument
Preservation, Kyev [email protected]
UNESCO
69. BADARCH Dendev
Director, UNESCO Office in Moscow,
UNESCO Representative in Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Republic of Moldova
and the Russian Federation, Moscow
70. BARRE Herve
Programme Specialist on Sustainable
Tourism, World Heritage Center, Paris,
UNESCO
71. MOREVA Liubava
Program Specialist for Culture, UNESCO
Office in Moscow for Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Republic of Moldova and the
Russian Federation, Moscow
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
85
Acknowledgements
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries ―Safeguarding World Heritage in the Context of
New Global Challenges‖ has been organized by the Russian Research Institute for Cultural and
Natural Heritage named after Dmitry Likhachev with the support of the UNESCO Moscow
Office for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation.
We express our deep gratitude for the comprehensive consultative support delivered by the staff
of this organization.
We also would like to specially note the co-organizers of the seminar and express our
personal thanks to the Deputy Minister on Culture Mr. Andrey Busygin and to the Chair of the
State Duma Committee on Culture Mr. Grigory Ivliev.
We highly acknowledge vital assistance of our major partner - the Moscow State
Integrated Art and Historical, Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve led by its
Director General Ms. Lyudmila Kolesnikova, and cordially thank her staff persons at the
Kolomenskoe Museum-reserve Ms. Marina Lyapina, Ms. Olga Polyakova, Ms. Svetlana
Burtseva and Mr. Sergey Slobodyan.
Most important multifunctional support of the event was delivered by the Heritage
Institute staff members – Mr. Petr Aleinikov, Ms. Evgeniya Andreeva, Ms. Irina Bylchenko,
Ms. Olga Vasilyeva, Ms. Elena Vorobieva, Mr. Alexander Eremeev, Ms. Marina Kuleshova,
Mr. Nikolay Maksakovsky, Ms. Elena Nedbalskaya, Ms. Nina Orlova, Ms. Irina Provorova,
Mr. Dmitry Solodky, Mr. Sergey Sokolsky, Mr. Vyacheslav Stolyarov and Ms. Margarita
Schmeleva.
We and all seminar participants cordially thank the Saucejas ensemble from Latvia for
the unforgettable musical performance.
Finally we would like to express our deep gratitude to the employees from various
agencies and organizations – we thank Mr. Herve Barre, Ms. Liubava Moreva, Mr. Konstantin
Ananichev, Ms.Svetlana Ryzhakova, Mr. Pavel Illarionov, Mr. Sergey Kulikov, Mr. Mikhail
Moiseev and Ms. Galina Platova for their good cooperation and support of the seminar events.
The Regional Seminar for CIS countries «Safeguarding World Heritage
in the Context of New Global Challenges»
1-3 March 2011 Moscow
86
Attachment 1
Questionnaire for the participants
1. Describe the structure (authorized ministries and agencies) and effectiveness of the
World Heritage Sites management in your country.
2. What kind of global challenges (climate change, urbanization and tourism
development) have a major impact on the World Heritage Sites? Please mention
specific cases in your country, if any.
3. Identify other factors and threats to the universal values of the heritage sites
(legislation, management, funding, public ignorance etc.). Comment on the specific
problems, please.
4. State-of-art for monitoring of the World Heritage Sites in your country - describe the
major problems in this sphere.
5. Cultural landscapes – what is their role in the national heritage preservation and in the
specific World Heritage Sites?
6. Assess the quality of World Heritage Sites preservation in your country (including
support for uniqueness criteria).
7. Balance between the ‗development‘ and ‗preservation‘ in practice – please provide
examples of positive and negative effects, if possible.