LIST OF ARTICLES Page The World Heritage Convention (WTC), Buffer Zones and Sweden by Thomas Adlercreutz….……1 World Cultural Heritage and the Buffer Zone – Croatian Experience by Jadran Antolovic ........... 8 A Dutch Approach to Buffer Zones by L. de Wit……………………………………………………………………….15 Buffer Zones in International Conventions, A First Approach by A. M. Draye…………………………..20 The World Heritage Convention and Buffer Zones by Toshiyuki Kono…………….……………………….25 Buffer Zone Under Polish Law with Particular Reference to Zones at the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum and Other Museums Commemorating Places of World War II Genocide Crimes by Wojciech Kowalski……………………………………………………………………………..……..…42 The World Heritage List – German Conflicts Related to Buffer Zones and Nomination Areas of Wide Extension: Cologne Cathedral and Dresden Elbe Valley by Christoph Machat……48 Buffer Zones in World Cultural Heritage Sites: Sri Lankan Examples in Urban and Natural Settings by Prashantha B. Mandawala………………………………………………………………………….51 Buffer Zones as a Tool for Protecting World Heritage Sites: The Cade of the Heritage Routes by Alberto Martorell Carreno…….……………………………………………………………………………………..88 Buffer Zones for Protecting Heritage Properties in the United States by James K. Reap…………110 Conservation of Cultural Heritage in Bulgaria and Buffer Zone Issues by Hristina Staneva..…..124 Conceptualizing Buffer Zone Protection in Kyoto by Umezu Akiko………………………………….……..139 “Conserving” Japan: Challenges on the World Heritage Sites in Hiroshima by Yushi Utaka…….161 The Buffer Zone and the Preservation of Cultural Heritage: The Spanish Case by Dr. Luis Anguita Villanueva…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..172 World Heritage Sites and Buffer Zones; The Case of Old Rauma and a New Local Detailed Plan by Satu-Kaarina Virtala………………………………………………….…………………………………………...187 The Buffer Zone and the Wartburg Case by W. von Treutzschler………………………………….………..190 World Heritage Site and Buffer Zones: an Australian Perspective by Graeme Wiffin………………193 1 The World Heritage Convention (WHC), Buffer Zones and Sweden Paper for ICLAFI’s annual meeting November 2006 in Hiroshima, Japan by Thomas Adlercreutz, jur. kand. Sweden ratified the WHC as the 83rd state on 22 January 1985. At ratification it was deemed that the internal legislation would be sufficient to safeguard heritage values for properties considered for nomination. The WHC does not mention buffer zones. As to legal protection, the following articles are of interest. Article 1 points to monuments, groups of buildings and sites of outstanding universal value from a historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view. By necessity, all those objects take up an area. Article 2 places an obligation on state parties to ensure identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the heritage within the scope of Article 1. Article 5 (d) defines the obligation as taking appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial measures. The Convention cannot be said to spell out in great detail what the obligations are. More detail is provided in the Operational Guidelines, of which the latest issue is from 2 February 2005. Under the Guidelines’ heading II. F Protection and management the following traits could be condensed to describe the objectives of protection. The outstanding universal values should be maintained at the time of the inscription or enhanced in the future (96). There must be long-term legislative, regulatory, institutional and/or traditional protection and management at the national and local levels within adequately delineated boundaries. How protection works must be clearly explained (97). Development and change must not negatively impact the value, integrity or authenticity of the property (98). Boundaries should be drawn to ensure the full expression of these qualities (99). Boundaries for properties nominated as cultural heritage should include all areas and attributes which are a direct tangible expression of the value, as well as areas which in the light of future research possibilities offer potential to contribute to and enhance such understanding (100). Boundaries may coincide with existing boundaries for national parks, reserves etc (102). As for buffer zones, they are defined as areas surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection. The area constituting the buffer zone should be determined in each case through appropriate mechanisms. Details on the 2 size, characteristics and authorised uses of a buffer zone, as well as a map indicating the precise boundaries of the property and its buffer zone, should be provided in the nomination (104). A clear explanation of how the buffer zone protects the property should also be provided and, if no buffer zone is proposed, an explanation of why not should be given (105 - 106). From a regulatory standpoint the need for buffer zones could be questioned. It seems clear that the requirements under paragraphs 96 – 102 cover all necessary aspects of legal protection. A boundary should be set, within which development and change must not negatively impact the value of the nominated property, including its full tangible expressions. What protection then could a buffer zone add, that could not already have been put within these boundaries? The common sense standpoint that the farther you get from the core, the less restriction may be necessary, can, of course, be expressed within the boundaries for the nominated property in itself. It seems to me that the concept of a buffer zone – and the rule there must always be one, unless an exception is particularly argued for – may serve as an attempt at easing the decision making process. To put this point a bit too sarcastically, a buffer zone might also buffer the preservation message. To UNESCO and the heritage community the nominator may say: Look, we have an extensive buffer zone in order to control what is happening even far from the protected heritage core. To land owners, developers and other local interests the message may instead sound: Hey, this is just the buffer zone. Nothing really bad can happen to your projects here. What is basically needed – and paragraphs 96 to 102 cover that need – is an area that is under protection. Within this area you should be able to modify various protective rules to fit the various protective needs, e.g. injunctions on buildings obstructing the view towards the protected monumental core or restrictions on the felling of trees, ground works threatening the archaeological context or other factors that might distract from the heritage value. The fact that this author is far from convinced that buffer zones are needed, cannot cloud that there seems to be a widespread opinion that the concept is indeed useful. And it is used in the legislation with which I am most familiar. Sweden has 14 World Heritage sites, most of them accepted on cultural criteria, a few of them shared with other states. Looking at the Advisory Body’s evaluation one finds that only a few of them have formal buffer zones, and that the information as to what protective regime applies in these is rather scant (in some cases misleading). Some of the evaluations are not accompanied by maps. The Swedish internal legislation applicable to protection of World Heritage properties consists of the following acts. 1. The Environmental Code (SFS 1998:808) gained legal force 1 January 1999. Thus it is a fairly modern legal instrument, working with area protection as a primary tool relevant 3 to world heritage properties. Chapter 7 bears the heading Area protection, and it contains provisions for National Parks (State owned), nature reserves and culture reserves (ownership irrelevant). Culture reserves are meant for the protection of cultural landscapes. The Code is detailed with regard to nature reserves. Restrictions can be placed on the designated area with regard to building rights, erection of fences, storage, digging and extraction of natural resources, cultivation and irrigation, planting and felling of trees, hunting, fishing and the use of pesticides. Access to the area can also be restricted. The owner could be bound to tolerate the building of roads, parking spaces, public foot paths, camping sites, bathing spaces, sanitary installations, etc. Forestry, pasturage and fencing can also be conducted. Corresponding regulatory possibilities are meant to apply to culture reserves. Restrictions on property rights may lead to economic compensation to the injured party, if the restrictions entail a serious impediment to the current use of the property. A nature or culture reserve does not have a buffer zone. There are, however, other provisions in the Environmental Code that serve similar purposes as buffer zones, and have been quoted frequently in the Swedish nominations. National government agencies are charged with monitoring zones of national importance to certain interests specified in the code. Nature and culture conservation are among the enumerated interests. The aim of this kind of very comprehensive zoning is to protect the zones from physical measures that might considerably impair the protected interest. These measures may occur in local