scholarly journals KRAJOBRAZ KULTUROWY NA LIŚCIE ŚWIATOWEGO DZIEDZICTWA – POLSKIE DOŚWIADCZENIA

2017 ◽  
pp. 21-30
Author(s):  
Andrzej Michałowski

The central organisation around which Polish cooperation with UNESCO on implementing the World Heritage Convention has been concentrated from the beginning is the Polish National Committee ICOMOS.The cooperation has been organised by institutions and people connected in some way with the Committee. Specialised institutions were gradually joining the cooperation. One example of such measures was the appointment of the Board of Historical Gardens and Palaces Conservation, transformed subsequently into the Centre for the Protection of Historic Landscape in Warsaw. A „garden” conservation society has gathered around this institution, composed of art historians, landscape architects, architects and gardeners. They have been carrying out interdisciplinary works concerning historic gardens and cultural landscapes in Poland. Their cooperation with the Polish National Committee ICOMOS andthe International Committee of Historic Gardens and Sites ICOMOS – IFLA was connected with the activities of UNESCO. Major activities of the Centre include: valuation and assessment of cultural landscapes for the World Heritage List; drawing up, in collaboration with the Fürst-Pückler-Park Bad Muskau Foundation, an application for the inscription of Park Muskau in the UNESCO World Heritage List; organisation of international conference: „The Regional Expert Meeting on Cultural Landscapes in Eastern Europe” in Białystok in 1999 at the request of WHC UNESCO; organisation of international conference „Cemetery Art” in 1993 at the request of WHC UNESCO, along with accompanying exhibitions concerning specific issues, organised by the Board of Historical Gardens and Palaces Conservation in Warsaw.

Author(s):  
Amy Strecker

Chapter 5 analyses the evolving conception and protection of landscape in the World Heritage Convention. First, it traces the development of landscape protection from its early conceptual dependency on nature, to the incorporation of ‘cultural landscapes’ within the Convention’s scope in 1992. It then discusses the typology of cultural landscapes, issues of representativeness and the implications of the Word Heritage system for landscape protection globally, as well as locally. In this regard, a number of cases are analysed which, on the one hand, support the World Heritage Convention’s instrumental role in landscape governance, but which on the other, highlight the problems involved in ascribing World Heritage status to living landscapes from a spatial justice perspective.


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-184

Today, limes is an en vogue term in Romania. Scientific research, heritage protection and, more recently, politic discourse – they all deal, directly or indirectly, with issues regarding the Frontiers of the Roman Empire in today’s Romania. In the context of nominating the Frontiers of the Roman Empire as a serial site of UNESCO World Heritage, each of the previously mentioned domains has its responsibilities towards the monument itself. In this study I focus on explaining the different understandings of the term limes. Next, I found it rather important and well-timed to discuss the main tasks and obligations of archaeological research, of the industry of tourism and of archaeological heritage protection in Romania throughout the entire process of nominating and inscribing the Limes on the UNESCO List, as well as after this process is long over.


2020 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia O'Donnell ◽  
Christophe Rivet

PurposeNatural resource extraction is perceived as a destructive aspect of human culture. This characterization is widespread, despite the activity having shaped relationships between communities and their environment to create entire sets of cultural values and expressions through settlement patterns, traditional skills and practices, innovation and technology, intangible cultural expressions, local economies and more. The cultural dimensions of natural resource extraction landscapes were discussed at the ICOMOS ADCOM Annual Symposium in La Plata, Argentina, in December 2018. The workshop included experts in cultural landscapes, sustainability, industrial archaeology and industrial heritage. This paper reports on these issues and deliberations focusing on World Heritage cultural landscapes of extraction.Design/methodology/approachThe report considers a broad survey of the World Heritage List and sites on national Tentative Lists to identify those related to natural extraction sites and distinguishing between categories of relict vs. living, and between the types of natural resources being extracted.FindingsThe conclusion is that the World Heritage Committee has yet to address the living value of natural resource extraction. Furthermore, the workshop attendants concluded that there is a pressing need to do so in light of the type, nature and sustainability of these sites. As the source of materials for many outstanding sites on the World Heritage List and the decreasing availability of some resources, the question requires consideration to ensure the sustainable use and livelihood of communities.Research limitations/implicationsThe limitations are set by the general terms of the survey and the limited engagement of knowledgeable individuals.Practical implicationsThe practical implications are related to guidance to review and analyse potential living cultural landscapes related to natural resource extraction.Originality/valueThere is no general discussion on this topic yet amongst professionals. The initiative of the workshop identified that gap and its related necessity to provide guidance.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Stefania Ferrucci

<p><b>State aspirations to have national properties recognised as belonging to the heritage of humanity with an international significance has increasingly empowered the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in regard to its influence upon international behaviour. In the early 1970s, UNESCO embarked on an ambitious mission to protect and preserve humanity’s most outstanding heritage to guarantee that it will be passed to future generations. It also aimed to recognise people’s interaction with nature and to ensure a balance between them. Towards this end, UNESCO launched a global World Heritage regime to accomplish its noble mandate. Over the past thirty-nine years this regime has become an international success as it has enabled the safeguarding of numerous tangible and intangible goods of exceptional value for the entirety of humanity. The key to its success has been a balanced combination of measures that highlight the regime’s direct and indirect forms of power. Yet, with a growing number of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and with growing threats to them, the World Heritage system has found itself increasingly facing difficulties in maintaining its “moral power”. These challenges have been exacerbated by a lack of coercive force and sanctioning methods in realistic terms, as well as by rising flows of tourism and, at the same time, decreasing international assistance and funds. The ongoing success of the regime thus come to depend, more than ever, upon the shared involvement and commitment of the States Parties, the international community, and the civil society.</b></p> <p>This thesis proposes to examine the multiple ways in which the World Heritage regime has used its power mechanisms to achieve its current significant international position. It will begin with a definition of the UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention, an international treaty to preserve the world cultural and natural and intangible heritage. UNESCO’ s World Heritage regime is thus chiefly based on the implementation of the World Heritage Convention and the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention through the World Heritage Committee (WHC). A brief diachronic view of the Convention’s work and aims are therefore imperative for understanding the regime’s power mechanisms and its dynamics. Also provided will be definitions of cultural and natural heritage as well as cultural landscapes and the adopted criteria for the nomination of world heritage, which are all key aspects and assessment measures of UNESCO’ s Heritage regime. After a brief synopsis of the differences between this regime and conventional International Organisations (IOs), this research will shed light on the nature of its persuasive forms of power: scientific objectivity, blacklisting, mimicry, and competition - especially regarding the significance of both the States Parties and the regime’s reputation, as well as its legitimacy. It will discuss how vital these forms of power are to success in influencing states to ratify the World Heritage Convention, to ensure compliance, and persuade them to jointly achieve the proposed goals. It will be further shown that the regime’s legitimacy is based on the perception of its procedures and favourable outcomes by its Member States. In addition, this research will theorise on the constructivist IR approach by adapting it to the regime. How Member States follow constructed rules and adopt a ‘logic of appropriateness’ will also be explored. It will in addition involve examination of its political tools, the World Heritage List, the List of World Heritage in Danger and socio-cultural tools, since they represent the conduit for its power mechanisms, and argue the chances of success in each arena. Examples from the Cologne Cathedral in Germany and the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal illustrate how the regime’s tools can be used as a deterrent mechanism to ensure the integrity of World Heritage sites. Moreover, the dichotomy of heritage viewed through the lens of national and international interests will be addressed, as well as what this entails for the States Parties’ sovereignty. International interests may come to the forefront of heritage protection, creating a new form of sovereignty: ‘Disaggregated sovereignty’. The World Heritage regime’s various benefits will also be discussed, its impact on the state’s economies especially in regard to tourism, the granting of international assistance as well as funds, and its influence on the States Parties social life by igniting a sense of prestige and pride about their World Heritage properties and by sensitising entire nations regarding the necessity to jointly protect and conserve this collective treasure. Examples from Cambodia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo illustrate the effectiveness of international assistance provided by the regime, while the example of the Galapagos Islands’ underlines the need to develop sustainable tourism practices to prevent the deterioration of heritage sites. ...</p>


2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (S260) ◽  
pp. 494-496
Author(s):  
Anna P. Sidorenko

AbstractProperties with a relationship to science are amongst the least represented on the UNESCO World Heritage List and the values of these properties, located in all the regions of the world, are not sufficiently recognised. The UNESCO and IAU encourage the States Parties to the World Heritage Convention to actively participate in the development and implementation of the Thematic Initiative “Astronomy and World Heritage” aiming to provide an opportunity to identify the properties connected with astronomy and for keeping their memory alive and preserving them from progressive deterioration, through the inscription of the most representative properties on the World Heritage List.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Stefania Ferrucci

<p><b>State aspirations to have national properties recognised as belonging to the heritage of humanity with an international significance has increasingly empowered the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in regard to its influence upon international behaviour. In the early 1970s, UNESCO embarked on an ambitious mission to protect and preserve humanity’s most outstanding heritage to guarantee that it will be passed to future generations. It also aimed to recognise people’s interaction with nature and to ensure a balance between them. Towards this end, UNESCO launched a global World Heritage regime to accomplish its noble mandate. Over the past thirty-nine years this regime has become an international success as it has enabled the safeguarding of numerous tangible and intangible goods of exceptional value for the entirety of humanity. The key to its success has been a balanced combination of measures that highlight the regime’s direct and indirect forms of power. Yet, with a growing number of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and with growing threats to them, the World Heritage system has found itself increasingly facing difficulties in maintaining its “moral power”. These challenges have been exacerbated by a lack of coercive force and sanctioning methods in realistic terms, as well as by rising flows of tourism and, at the same time, decreasing international assistance and funds. The ongoing success of the regime thus come to depend, more than ever, upon the shared involvement and commitment of the States Parties, the international community, and the civil society.</b></p> <p>This thesis proposes to examine the multiple ways in which the World Heritage regime has used its power mechanisms to achieve its current significant international position. It will begin with a definition of the UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention, an international treaty to preserve the world cultural and natural and intangible heritage. UNESCO’ s World Heritage regime is thus chiefly based on the implementation of the World Heritage Convention and the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention through the World Heritage Committee (WHC). A brief diachronic view of the Convention’s work and aims are therefore imperative for understanding the regime’s power mechanisms and its dynamics. Also provided will be definitions of cultural and natural heritage as well as cultural landscapes and the adopted criteria for the nomination of world heritage, which are all key aspects and assessment measures of UNESCO’ s Heritage regime. After a brief synopsis of the differences between this regime and conventional International Organisations (IOs), this research will shed light on the nature of its persuasive forms of power: scientific objectivity, blacklisting, mimicry, and competition - especially regarding the significance of both the States Parties and the regime’s reputation, as well as its legitimacy. It will discuss how vital these forms of power are to success in influencing states to ratify the World Heritage Convention, to ensure compliance, and persuade them to jointly achieve the proposed goals. It will be further shown that the regime’s legitimacy is based on the perception of its procedures and favourable outcomes by its Member States. In addition, this research will theorise on the constructivist IR approach by adapting it to the regime. How Member States follow constructed rules and adopt a ‘logic of appropriateness’ will also be explored. It will in addition involve examination of its political tools, the World Heritage List, the List of World Heritage in Danger and socio-cultural tools, since they represent the conduit for its power mechanisms, and argue the chances of success in each arena. Examples from the Cologne Cathedral in Germany and the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal illustrate how the regime’s tools can be used as a deterrent mechanism to ensure the integrity of World Heritage sites. Moreover, the dichotomy of heritage viewed through the lens of national and international interests will be addressed, as well as what this entails for the States Parties’ sovereignty. International interests may come to the forefront of heritage protection, creating a new form of sovereignty: ‘Disaggregated sovereignty’. The World Heritage regime’s various benefits will also be discussed, its impact on the state’s economies especially in regard to tourism, the granting of international assistance as well as funds, and its influence on the States Parties social life by igniting a sense of prestige and pride about their World Heritage properties and by sensitising entire nations regarding the necessity to jointly protect and conserve this collective treasure. Examples from Cambodia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo illustrate the effectiveness of international assistance provided by the regime, while the example of the Galapagos Islands’ underlines the need to develop sustainable tourism practices to prevent the deterioration of heritage sites. ...</p>


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 149-160
Author(s):  
DRÉ VAN MARREWIJK

Urban World Heritage and the Historic Urban Landscape approach in the Netherlands Within the category of cultural landscapes on the UNESCO World Heritage List the ‘continuing urban landscapes’ are a small but interesting group of sites. This group consists of urban and suburban areas (‘urban landscapes’) with outstanding historical and heritage values, while at the same time they are characterized by a high degree of spatial dynamics. Many developments take place that lead to change of the environment. Rio de Janeiro, the mining landscape of Nord-Pas de Calais and the Italian Amalfi coast near Naples are examples of these urban cultural landscapes on the World Heritage List. Next to these sites, there are urban World Heritage sites that formally are no cultural landscapes, but have similar characteristics. Historical city centers of Rome or Bruges, the Amsterdam canal ring or Speicherstadt in Hamburg are comparably stretched out and have comparable values. These sites are confronted with similar challenges with respect to conservation and management of change. The obligation to preserve the outstanding universal value of the site could become under pressure. This surely is the case in some urban and suburban World Heritage sites in the Kingdom of the Netherlands: Amsterdam Canal Ring, Defence Line of Amsterdam and Willemstad, Curaçao. The World Heritage status requires a strict management of the site. UNESCO’S Historic Urban Landscape approach can be helpful to make preservation and development compatible. In this article the opportunities and dilemmas of the HUL and ICOMOS’S role in it are discussed. A stronger emphasize on HUL when reviewing developments in urban World Heritage sites is advocated.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 18-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Олег Афанасьев ◽  
Oleg Afanasiev

The article discusses the concept of “agrоcultural (agricultural) heritage” and composing it objects in rural (agricultural) tourism, for which they are the most important destinations. This research object is interdisciplinary, affecting a variety of spheres, particularly, agroourism, sightseeing, services and so forth, and economy in general. Agricultural heritage includes tangible objects of agricultural and technical culture, created for the production. Such objects are saved for better and complete study and understanding of their nature, not for contemplation; they are not works of art. This heritage is anthropogenic and technological. From the scientific and methodological point of view the very understanding of the term of &#34;agricultural heritage&#34; is still quite uncertain. The article presents a comprehensive understanding of it based on the nature-use concept as a binary object system &#34;Man - Nature&#34;. The available experience of classification of agricultural heritage objects is considered. Starting 2002, at the initiative of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) the criteria are developed and an inventory of objects of the world agro- cultural heritage, Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS), is conducted. One of the GIAHS goals is identifying objects of agricultural heritage that are most corresponding to the status of &#34;global agricultural heritage&#34; and their promotion for including to the UNESCO World Heritage List. The article presents for the first time ever full GIAHS list in Russian as of October, 2016. We have separated in special list 114 objects from 58 countries, corresponding in our view to the concept of &#34;agricultural heritage&#34; from the UNESCO World Heritage List current at the end of 2016. The article presets the attempt to classify them by 12 categories. The rating of countries in the world by the number of Agricultural UNESCO World Heritage Sites is submitted. The author notes that exactly this category of objects forms a primary resource base for the agricultural (rural) tourism development as the most important attractive destinations, especially in Europe. As the conclusions the reasons are formulated, under which agricultural tourism is a promising form of tourism organization both for individual agricultural enterprises on the basis of objects of agricultural heritage, and for the regions in which these objects are presented.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document