University of Florida Thesis Or Dissertation Formatting

BUFFER ZONES AT WORLD HERITAGE SITES: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING BASED ON THE FRENCH EXPERIENCE

CHARLOTTE L. LAKE

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2015

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to offer my sincere thanks to my committee chair, Dr. Christopher

Silver. Throughout my journey he has been a consistent and thoughtful mentor, guiding me in both the process and content of my research, and always ready with a resource or contact for any topic I was wrestling with. I deeply appreciate the work of my committee members, Professor Marty Hylton, III; Professor William Tilson; and Dr.

William Calin, in guiding my research. My committee’s questions and suggestions have been invaluable in steering my work, leading me to new ideas I would not otherwise have considered, and inspiring me to fully explore my research topic.

I am grateful to US/ICOMOS, who sponsored my internship at the ICOMOS

Secretariat in Paris, which strongly shaped the course of my research. I am also indebted to the entire staff of the ICOMOS Secretariat for welcoming me; in particular, I would like to thank Regina Durighello for patiently answering my many questions about

World Heritage and for suggesting research on buffer zones, Gwenaëlle Bourdin for teaching me to use the typological framework and conduct a comparative analysis, and

Jose Garcia Vicente, Lucille Smirnov, and Volker Zimmermann for their aid in helping me gather the many documents I needed.

I am also grateful to the UF Center for European Studies, whose funding has proven crucial to my learning French and thus ability to work with necessary French documents, and also enabled most of my field visits to French World Heritage sites and research at the ICOMOS Documentation Centre. I would also like to thank the UF

Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, in particular Dr. Theresa Antes, both for furthering my learning of French and for the opportunity to teach French.

I offer my deep appreciation to Professor Pete Prugh, who first taught me what historic preservation is and started my path toward its study in earnest, as well as to

Professor Roy Eugene Graham, who first introduced me to the UNESCO World

Heritage program. I would also like to thank Dr. Dawn Jourdan, who was a great help in

exploring policy evaluation methodology; Dr. Kristin Larsen, who mentored me in

teaching my first course in historic preservation; and Dr. Janet Matthews, who guided

me in studying World Heritage policy in the US. I also offer my sincere gratitude to the

staff members of the College of Design, Construction and Planning, who have never

failed to be helpful and understanding, and in particular to Theresa Jones, who has

always been able to help me solve the trickiest problems.

I would also like to thank the staff of the Documentation Centre of the Pôle

International de la Préhistoire and Roland Eymard of DRAC Acquitaine, who so kindly

assisted me in tracking down the elusive but necessary nomination file for the Vézère

Valley, as well as Dr. Audrey Viguier, who was not only key in helping me to learn

French, but in assisting me with my efforts in document translation and correspondence

with French agencies. I offer warm appreciation to Shayne Nelson and Stefano Romei,

who helped me investigate Provins, and to Roger Decater, who always made sure I had

a spot to work on my dissertation while in Paris.

I am indebted to my parents for their support and encouragement, and to my

brother for devoting much of his vacation in France to visiting World Heritage sites with

me. Finally, my deepest thanks to my husband, who has been my copy editor,

brainstorm partner, and staunch supporter in completing this research.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 3

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 11

ABSTRACT ...... 13

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 15

The 1972 World Heritage Convention and the UNESCO World Heritage List ...... 15 Research Questions and Relevance ...... 18

2 OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE IN WORLD HERITAGE: THE CONCEPT .. 20

Outstanding Universal Value and Cultural Criteria for Inscription ...... 20 Authenticity and Integrity as World Heritage Concepts ...... 22 Evolution of the Concept of Authenticity in Heritage Conservation ...... 23 Nineteenth Century Approaches ...... 23 Conservation Charters ...... 25 Authenticity, Integrity, and Significance in the Late Twentieth Century to the Present ...... 29 Authenticity, Integrity, and Significance at Different Types of Sites ...... 34 Findings ...... 36

3 BUFFER ZONES IN WORLD HERITAGE: THE PRACTICE ...... 38

Buffer Zones in UNESCO Documents ...... 38 International Interest in Buffer Zones at World Heritage Sites ...... 41 Origin of Buffer Zones at Cultural World Heritage Sites ...... 42 Buffer Zones: Definition and Purpose ...... 43 Buffer Zones: Implementation and Legislation ...... 44 Case studies involving heritage legislation used to establish buffer zones ...... 47 Case studies involving spatial planning regulations used to create buffer zones ...... 48 Case studies involving environmental or national park legislation used to create buffer zones ...... 50 Buffer Zones: Issues and Concerns ...... 50 Buffer Zones: Possibilities and Opportunities ...... 55 Findings ...... 58

4 METHODOLOGY ...... 60

Criteria for Selection and Analysis of French World Heritage Sites for Study ...... 60 Selection of Case Studies ...... 60 Cultural World Heritage sites ...... 60 French World Heritage sites ...... 61 Typology of sites ...... 61 Buffer zone status ...... 62 Analysis of Case Studies ...... 63 General site description ...... 63 Site OUV, authenticity and integrity, and inscription criteria ...... 63 Site chronology ...... 63 Inscribed site and setting boundaries and characteristics ...... 63 Legal protection of the site and surroundings ...... 64 Management plan and monitoring activity ...... 64 Issues and actions taken ...... 64 Data Collection: Content Analysis, Document Validity and Availability, Site Visits . 64 Content Analysis ...... 65 Document Validity ...... 69 Determining and Describing Site Values and OUV ...... 71 Document Availability ...... 73 Site Visits ...... 73

5 HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND WORLD HERITAGE IN FRANCE: THE BACKGROUND ...... 75

World Heritage in France ...... 75 French Administrative Units ...... 76 French Legislation Related to Heritage Conservation ...... 79 National Heritage Code ...... 79 Spatial Planning Code ...... 82 Environmental Code ...... 85

6 SELECTION OF FRENCH WORLD HERITAGE SITES ...... 86

Frameworks for Categorizing World Heritage Sites ...... 86 Typological Framework and French Sites Selected ...... 88 Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley ...... 88 Mont-Saint-Michel and Its Bay ...... 88 Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs ...... 89 Historic Site of Lyons ...... 89 The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape ...... 90 The Palace and Park of Versailles ...... 90 Unrepresented Types ...... 90

7 CASE STUDY I: MONT-SAINT-MICHEL AND ITS BAY ...... 92

Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay: General Site Description...... 92 Outstanding Universal Value ...... 94 Inscription Criteria ...... 94 Authenticity and Integrity ...... 96 Site Chronology: Basic History, Conservation Efforts, and World Heritage Activity ...... 97 Inscribed Site and Buffer Zone Boundaries and Characteristics ...... 101 Legal Protection ...... 105 World Heritage Site ...... 105 Buffer Zone and Surroundings ...... 106 Management and Monitoring ...... 107 Issues and Actions Taken ...... 109 Nineteenth Century Earthworks, Siltation of the Bay, and Related Tourist Accommodations ...... 109 Wind Turbines ...... 112 Development ...... 115 Natural Disasters and Conservation Issues ...... 116 Discussion ...... 116

8 CASE STUDY II: PALACE AND PARK OF VERSAILLES ...... 125

Palace and Park of Versailles: General Site Description ...... 125 Outstanding Universal Value ...... 125 Inscription Criteria ...... 126 Authenticity and Integrity ...... 126 Site Chronology: Basic History, Conservation Efforts, and World Heritage Activity ...... 127 Inscribed Site and Buffer Zone Boundaries and Characteristics ...... 128 Legal Protection ...... 129 Management and Monitoring ...... 130 Issues and Actions Taken ...... 131 Discussion ...... 133

9 CASE STUDY III: PREHISTORIC SITES AND DECORATED CAVES OF THE VÉZÈRE VALLEY ...... 141

Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley: General Site Description ...... 141 Outstanding Universal Value ...... 143 Inscription Criteria ...... 144 Authenticity and Integrity ...... 145 Site Chronology: Basic History, Conservation Efforts, and World Heritage Activity ...... 147 Inscribed Site and Setting Characteristics ...... 150 Legal Protection ...... 151

Management and Monitoring ...... 152 Issues and Actions Taken ...... 154 Lascaux Cave ...... 154 Overall Threats in the Vézère Valley ...... 158 Discussion ...... 159

10 CASE STUDY IV: HISTORIC SITE OF LYONS ...... 165

Historic Site of Lyons: General Site Description ...... 165 Outstanding Universal Value ...... 166 Inscription Criteria ...... 167 Authenticity and Integrity ...... 167 Site Chronology: Basic History, Conservation Efforts, and World Heritage Activity ...... 168 Inscribed Site and Buffer Zone Boundaries and Characteristics ...... 170 Legal Protection ...... 171 Management and Monitoring ...... 173 Issues and Actions Taken ...... 174 Discussion ...... 175

11 CASE STUDY V: PROVINS, TOWN OF MEDIEVAL FAIRS ...... 185

Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs: General Site Description ...... 185 Outstanding Universal Value ...... 188 Inscription Criteria ...... 188 Authenticity and Integrity ...... 189 Site Chronology: Basic History, Conservation Efforts, and World Heritage Activity ...... 190 Inscribed Site and Buffer Zone Boundaries and Characteristics ...... 193 Legal Protection ...... 195 Management and Monitoring ...... 196 Issues and Actions Taken ...... 197 Discussion ...... 198

12 CASE STUDY VI: THE CAUSSES AND THE CÉVENNES, MEDITERRANEAN AGRO-PASTORAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ...... 206

The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape: General Site Description ...... 206 Outstanding Universal Value ...... 209 Inscription Criteria ...... 210 Authenticity and Integrity ...... 210 Site Chronology: Basic History, Conservation Efforts, and World Heritage Activity ...... 211 Inscribed Site and Buffer Zone Boundaries and Characteristics ...... 212 Legal Protection ...... 217 Management and Monitoring ...... 218

Issues and Actions Taken ...... 220 Discussion ...... 223

13 ANALYSIS OF FRENCH CASE STUDIES ...... 228

Threats and Issues ...... 228 Visual Setting and Development ...... 228 Threat of Significant Alterations to Physical Setting ...... 232 Impact of Human Activity ...... 234 Relationships Between Inscribed Sites and Elements of Their Setting ...... 236 Legislation, Regulation, and Management ...... 237 Tourism and Opportunities ...... 240 Analysis of French Legal Protections for Heritage ...... 241

14 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING AND EVALUATING BUFFER ZONES ...... 246

Creating and Implementing Buffer Zones ...... 246 Determining That a Buffer Zone is Unnecessary ...... 249 Buffer Zone Typology...... 251 Visual Buffer Zone ...... 252 Environmental Buffer Zone ...... 253 Human Activity Buffer Zone ...... 253 Affiliated Elements Buffer Zone ...... 254 Opportunity Buffer Zone ...... 255 Administrative Buffer Zone ...... 257 Monitoring Buffer Zone ...... 258 Applying the Buffer Zone Typology to the French Case Studies ...... 258 Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay ...... 258 Palace and Park of Versailles ...... 260 Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley...... 260 Historic Site of Lyons ...... 261 Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs ...... 262 The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape ...... 262 Recommendations for Expert Evaluation of Buffer Zones ...... 263

15 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITORING BUFFER ZONES ...... 266

UNESCO World Heritage Monitoring: Existing Requirements and Programs ...... 266 Monitoring Buffer Zones Using Indicators ...... 270 Best Practices in Selecting and Using Indicators ...... 271 Buffer Zone Monitoring Framework ...... 274 Category 1 – Development ...... 274 Category 2 – Resource and Land Use ...... 277 Category 3 – Environmental Conditions ...... 280 Category 4 – Negative Human Action ...... 283

Category 5 – Administrative Issues ...... 284 Potential Indicators for Monitoring the French Case Studies ...... 286 Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay ...... 286 Palace and Park of Versailles ...... 287 Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley...... 288 Historic Site of Lyons ...... 289 Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs ...... 289 The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape ...... 289

16 CONCLUSIONS ...... 291

APPENDIX

A GLOSSARY OF WORLD HERITAGE TERMS ...... 297

B CULTURAL CRITERIA IN THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION ...... 301

C TYPOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FROM THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST: FILLING THE GAPS – AN ACTION PLAN FOR THE FUTURE ...... 302

D LIST OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPERTIES ...... 303

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 312

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 327

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

7-1 Photos of Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay...... 121

7-2 Map of Mont-Saint-Michel inscribed site and buffer zone boundaries...... 122

7-3 Map of the Ramsar zone around Mont-Saint-Michel...... 123

7-4 Map of the area of landscape influence of Mont-Saint-Michel...... 124

8-1 Map of Palace and Park of Versailles with buffer zone...... 137

8-2 Map of heritage sites and surroundings of the classified historic monument Versailles...... 138

8-3 Versailles: Pasture within the boundary of the inscribed site...... 139

8-4 Versailles: Screen of vegetation at the edge of the palace grounds...... 139

8-5 Versailles: View of buffer zone from within the palace grounds...... 140

8-6 Versailles: View of the buffer zone outside the palace from the orangerie...... 140

9-1 Map of Vézère Valley with components of World Heritage site...... 163

9-2 Map of la Mouthe cave in Vézère Valley...... 164

10-1 Historic Site of Lyons inscribed site and buffer zone...... 177

10-2 Neighborhoods of Lyon...... 178

10-3 Era of buildings with the World Heritage site of Lyon...... 179

10-4 View of Lyon from Fourvière Hill looking east...... 180

10-5 Roman ruins on Fourvière Hill in Lyon...... 180

10-6 Typical street in the Old Lyon district...... 181

10-7 Bellecour Neighborhood in Lyon...... 181

10-8 Rue de Cuire in the buffer zone, north of the World Heritage site...... 182

10-9 Rue de Cuire outside the buffer zone north of the World Heritage site...... 182

10-10 Proposal for buffer zone in the original nomination for Lyon...... 183

10-11 The World Heritage site within the commune of Lyon...... 184

11-1 Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs inscribed site and buffer zone...... 201

11-2 Monuments of the Upper Town of Provins...... 202

11-3 Features of the inscribed World Heritage site of Provins...... 203

11-4 The buffer zone of the World Heritage site Provins...... 204

11-5 View from the ramparts of the Upper Town looking north toward the buffer zone...... 205

11-6 The Voulzie River flowing just outside the edge of the Lower Town of Provins...... 205

12-1 Map of the Causses and Cévennes inscribed site and buffer zone...... 226

12-2 Map of the geographic areas of the Causses and Cévennes ...... 227

C-1 Typological framework for categorizing cultural World Heritage sites...... 302

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

BUFFER ZONES AT WORLD HERITAGE SITES: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING BASED ON THE FRENCH EXPERIENCE

Charlotte L. Lake

December 2015

Chair: Christopher Silver Major: Design, Construction and Planning

Buffer zones as a tool for protecting World Heritage sites have been of increasing interest since the Operational Guidelines were amended in 2005 to require buffer zones. While a buffer zone is only one tool among many for protecting cultural heritage sites, it is a tool that is particularly well-suited to safeguarding the setting of a site and for mitigating external threats stemming from a its near surroundings. There have been two expert conferences specifically dedicated to examining and discussing buffer zones, although there are still many questions related to their creation, implementation, and monitoring.

In 2007, France began to retroactively add buffer zones to sites inscribed early in the history of the World Heritage List. This offered the ability to select case studies from among multiple types of sites as well as sites with no buffer zones, sites inscribed with a buffer zone, and sites with retroactively added buffer zones. This research examined six

French cultural sites that represent nearly all of the site types of the typological framework used by ICOMOS in comparing and evaluating sites nominated to the World

Heritage List. By analyzing information in the case studies from the two expert conferences, recommendations from those meetings, and the current practices

recommended by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, this research has resulted in a further exploration of the process of buffer zone creation, including a buffer zone typology linked to protective function. This research also proposes recommendations for determining when a buffer zone should not be implemented, given that the current

Operational Guidelines require any State Party not defining a buffer zone in a nomination file to justify the lack of need. Finally, this research proposes an indicator framework for monitoring buffer zones based on the factors identified by the UNESCO

World Heritage Centre as impacting World Heritage sites and currently in use for tracking threats in state of conservation reports and periodic reporting, and which could be used to assist in future research evaluating the efficacy of buffer zones.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The 1972 World Heritage Convention and the UNESCO World Heritage List

The 1972 World Heritage Convention (Appendix A) is the result of UNESCO’s

1960s efforts to conserve cultural heritage in the face of development, the work of the

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to safeguard natural sites, a 1965

US White House conference aiming at international conservation (Cameron 2009), and the 1960s collaborative international effort to save Egyptian temple sites that were to be flooded during the construction of the Aswan Dam (Alberts and Hazen 2010). Earlier conservation efforts had focused largely on preventing damage during times of war, but it was not until the implementation of the World Heritage Convention that there was a codification of the effort to protect heritage sites against everyday threats like development or pollution (Alberts and Hazen 2010). Competent execution of the

Convention was to be achieved through three means: signatory nations, known as

States Parties, were expected to delegate professionals with experience in heritage conservation to hold seats on the World Heritage Committee; three Advisory Bodies comprised of experts in heritage conservation fields were to counsel the World Heritage

Committee; and experts at UNESCO were to offer further professional support to the

Committee (Cameron 2009). Early delegates to the Committee were typically experts, although in recent years States Parties often appoint political designees to the

Committee rather than conservation professionals, which may allow political desires to trump the counsel of the Advisory Bodies (Cameron 2009).

The World Heritage Convention is intended to promote international peace, cooperation and understanding by recognizing the joint heritage of humanity and

encouraging nations to work together to preserve outstanding natural and cultural sites1

throughout the world (UNESCO 1972). Managed by the UNESCO World Heritage

Committee and its affiliated UNESCO World Heritage Centre, the World Heritage List is

one of the primary tools of the Convention. Each nation has its own method for selecting

which sites to nominate to the World Heritage List, and has its own national and local

legislation that govern the conservation and management of these sites. The

nomination file submitted to the World Heritage Committee must meet the requirements

set forth by the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage

Convention (Operational Guidelines), which explain how to implement the terms of the

World Heritage Convention.

The World Heritage Committee holds an annual meeting to discuss and vote on

the sites nominated to the World Heritage List, issue recommendations and requests

regarding the current state of conservation of sites on the List, place sites on the List of

World Heritage in Danger, and, in extremely rare cases, delist sites. The World Heritage

Committee primarily relies on three Advisory Bodies for scientific and expert assistance

in these tasks. IUCN is responsible for aiding with the evaluation of natural sites,

ICOMOS with cultural sites, and ICCROM with education and training in conservation.

The World Heritage Committee also typically requests that the Advisory Bodies

coordinate research and conduct expert meetings on various topics related to the World

Heritage List and heritage conservation, usually as specific issues arise.

1 To be inscribed on the World Heritage List, cultural sites must meet at least one of the six cultural criteria (criteria i – vi) outlined in the 2013 Operational Guidelines, natural sites must meet at least one of the four natural criteria (criteria vii – x), and mixed sites must meet at least one of each (2013a).

The World Heritage List is meant to express the unity of humankind in the face of great cultural diversity, and as such, has been open to interpretation and changing application since its inception (Cunha 1994). Originally, for a cultural site to be inscribed on the World Heritage List, it had to demonstrate Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) as evidenced by meeting at least one of the six criteria of significance for cultural heritage outlined in the Operational Guidelines (Appendix B), pass the test of authenticity as

described in the Operational Guidelines, and be protected by appropriate legislation and

management procedures (Cameron 2009). These same standards must still be met for

inscription, but over time the wording of the cultural criteria in the Operational

Guidelines has been updated, and interpretation of the criteria and thus specific

designation of criteria has not always been consistent (Jokilehto 2008). Furthermore,

there has also been variation as to who proposes criteria for a specific site when it is

nominated or inscribed – in some cases the State Party has made a suggestion, in

others ICOMOS has done so, while in the case of many early nominations even

ICOMOS did not recommend criteria, so, for example, it fell upon the World Heritage

Committee to designate the criteria of significance for the majority of sites being

inscribed in 1979 (Jokilehto 2008).

There have also been ongoing debates concerning the World Heritage List in

terms of its composition and purpose. One debate concerns the nature of the sites

being nominated and inscribed on the World Heritage List, and whether only ‘the best of

the best’ sites should be inscribed, or if the World Heritage List should also include sites

that are ‘representative of the best’ (Cameron 2009). Furthermore, although the original

intention was primarily aimed at preservation of significant sites, many States Parties

have begun to nominate sites for prestige and in the hopes of increasing economic gain through tourism (Fejérdy 2009). The Budapest Declaration of 2002 touched on the issue of World Heritage List content, delineating ‘four Cs’ important in the goals of the List and inscription; namely credibility, or how representative the sites on the List are of heritage throughout the world in general; conservation; capacity-building activities; and communication; with a fifth ‘C’, community involvement, added in 2007 (Fejérdy 2009).

Certainly preservation strategies at World Heritage sites have also been the subject of a great deal of study and discussion between States Parties and conservation experts. One current conservation issue is the use of buffer zones to protect World

Heritage sites. A buffer zone is an area adjacent to or surrounding an inscribed site that aids in protecting the site from external threats.

Research Questions and Relevance

In 2006 and 2008 expert meetings regarding buffer zones were held at

Hiroshima, Japan and Davos, Switzerland, respectively; these meetings identified numerous questions related to buffer zones. The questions raised included the ability of buffer zones to respond to changing conditions (Staneva 2006b), how setting relates to and impacts a given site (Mürner 2009; UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2009b), whether buffer zones are meant to protect or enhance the site (Turner 2009), whether buffer zones could detract from the protection of the World Heritage site (Turner 2009), whether there should be different types of buffer zones (UNESCO World Heritage

Centre 2009b), and how a buffer zone should be established and managed (UNESCO

World Heritage Centre 2009b). Based on these findings and unanswered questions, the current research employs case studies at French World Heritage sites to address the following research questions:

• What approach/criteria should be used in establishing a buffer zone for a cultural World Heritage site?

• What criteria should be used to determine that a buffer zone is unnecessary at a cultural World Heritage site, given that the Operational Guidelines currently require justification for any site nominated without a buffer zone?

• What criteria should be applied in determining the boundaries of a buffer zone?

• How should indicators be selected to monitor a buffer zone’s efficacy, given that currently no monitoring is required for buffer zones?

While a buffer zone is not the only tool available for the protection of heritage

sites, it is one option available to conservationists, policy makers, and site managers.

Buffer zones at World Heritage sites protect the OUV of the inscribed site by regulating

the site’s setting, making buffer zones a potentially unique tool in the sense that activity

outside the boundary of a heritage site can still impact the area within the site, but may

otherwise be overlooked in terms of regulations specifically intended to protect the

heritage resource. Furthermore, both States Parties and Advisory Bodies have grappled

with the concept of buffer zones in terms of creating them and evaluating them; further

research into criteria for their establishment and monitoring will aid in this process.

While it is certainly important to reactively address existing problems reported at World

Heritage sites, buffer zones offer the potential for proactive protection in the site’s

setting, where activity may otherwise take place without easily recognizing the negative

impact on the site’s OUV. Finally, buffer zones may also prove useful in areas of

heritage conservation outside of World Heritage, and it is reasonable to expect that the

criteria for establishing and monitoring buffer zones could apply to efforts to protect

many forms of cultural heritage resources.

CHAPTER 2 OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE IN WORLD HERITAGE: THE CONCEPT

This chapter discusses the concepts of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), authenticity, and integrity at cultural heritage sites. Any site inscribed on the World

Heritage List must demonstrate OUV, and this value must be protected by measures taken both within the site and within any buffer zone the site may have (UNESCO World

Heritage Committee 2013a). The authenticity and integrity of cultural nominations to the

World Heritage List are also evaluated prior to inscription, and buffer zones play a role in promoting these aspects of a site, as well (UNESCO World Heritage Committee

2013a). All three concepts have been the source of extensive discussion in World

Heritage literature, both in terms of meaning and in terms of how they should be applied to heritage sites. Ideas about authenticity have evolved from the nineteenth century through the present, as have ideas concerning OUV and integrity during the twentieth century, causing variation in their application both over time and place. Given the close link between buffer zones, OUV, authenticity, and integrity, it is important to understand both the history of these terms and how they are used in contemporary conservation practices.

Outstanding Universal Value and Cultural Criteria for Inscription

The concept of Outstanding Universal Value lies at the heart of the World

Heritage List. The six criteria by which a cultural site can meet the threshold for OUV indicate the values that a site must demonstrate in order to be inscribed (UNESCO

World Heritage Committee 2013a). These values must then be safeguarded in order for the site to retain its significance, and thus are the values that national legislation, management plans, and buffer zones should protect. As will be demonstrated, since the

inception of the World Heritage List, the concept of OUV has been loosely defined and been the cause of much confusion and disagreement on the part of States Parties,

World Heritage Committee delegates, and experts performing evaluations for the

Advisory Bodies.

The term Outstanding Universal Value has never been defined in the World

Heritage Convention, nor was it defined in the Operational Guidelines until their 2005 revision (Cameron 2009). The omission in the Convention was deliberate, a choice made to allow future evolution in interpretation and application of the concept (Fejérdy

2008). Instead, the Advisory Bodies were asked to delineate a set of criteria that would act as the actual measurement for OUV, and they proposed ten criteria, six for cultural sites and four for natural sites, that were included in the Operational Guidelines in 1978

(Cameron 2009), and have been included in one form or another in every version of this document since then. The wording of the cultural criteria has changed twice since the inception of the Convention, in part due to the realization each time that States Parties, the Advisory Bodies, and the World Heritage Committee were applying them inconsistently (Boccardi 2008). Criterion (vi) has been a source of debate from the beginning, as it deals with associative values linking a site to influential individuals, movements, or religions, and initially there was some concern it might cause the World

Heritage List to tend toward the support of nationalism (Cameron 2009); the World

Heritage Committee has for some time suggested that a site should rarely, if ever, be

inscribed on the basis of criterion (vi) alone. In 2006, the World Heritage Committee

requested the Advisory Bodies conduct a study on the criteria and OUV, and this study

is still underway.

The current definition of OUV in the Operational Guidelines states that it is

“cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity.” (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a:14) A definition was also suggested at the 1998 Global Strategy Natural and Cultural Expert Meeting in

Amsterdam, namely “an outstanding response to issues of universal nature common to or addressed by all human cultures”, but which was not subsequently adopted by the

World Heritage Committee (Petzet 2008:371).

Authenticity and Integrity as World Heritage Concepts

As part of the nomination process, the World Heritage Committee and the

Advisory Bodies also evaluate potential cultural sites according to authenticity as per

the Nara Document, which is included as Annex 4 of the Operational Guidelines

(UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a). The test of authenticity includes a

number of attributes: “form and design; materials and substance; use and function;

traditions, techniques and management systems; location and setting; language, and

other forms of intangible heritage; spirit and feeling; and other internal and external

factors” (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a:22). Both cultural and natural sites

are evaluated for integrity, which is considered “a measure of wholeness and intactness

of the… heritage and its attributes;” the site must have boundaries that contain all

elements that express its significance and should not be adversely affected by

development or neglect (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a:23). As used in

the Operational Guidelines, authenticity is a site’s capacity to express its OUV, while

integrity speaks to the completeness of the listing and whether or not all elements

necessary to the OUV are included in the listing and intact (Stovel 2007).

Evolution of the Concept of Authenticity in Heritage Conservation

The idea of authenticity as a concern when treating a historic or cultural site has evolved considerably over time, and is still the subject of a great deal of debate and discussion today. The history of modern approaches is typically traced from the attitudes of the nineteenth century architects John Ruskin and Eugène Emmanuel

Viollet-le-Duc, through the charters and agreements on heritage conservation of the early and mid-twentieth century. As professionals have slowly broadened areas of interest for heritage conservation efforts, so, too, has the discussion and interpretation of authenticity changed. Although there is no universal agreement as to a definition of authenticity, the most predominant modern viewpoint links the concept to a heritage site’s significance and its ability to express that significance, even in the face of change over time.

Nineteenth Century Approaches

Although there were numerous restoration architects in Europe in the nineteenth century, the two key men in any current discussion of preservation strategies of the era are Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc in France and John Ruskin in England. While neither Viollet-le-Duc’s nor Ruskin’s approaches are espoused in their entirety today, modern preservation approaches can be traced through the influence of their strategies.

Viollet-le-Duc (1814-1878) undertook his first major restoration at Vézelay in

1840 at the behest of the recently appointed General Inspector of Historic Monuments,

Ludovic Vitet (Dupont 1983), although his most famous restoration works are at Notre

Dame in Paris and Carcassonne. Viollet-le-Duc believed in the importance of understanding historical forms of architecture in conducting restoration work (Skarmeas

1983), including overall style, ornament, material, and construction technique (Dupont

1983). His stated theory was to approach any given project by taking into account its historic style and material, and to treat later additions with the level of care dependent on their quality (Dupont 1983). However, in execution many of his projects included alterations and additions that have been criticized for being creations of his own fancy rather than reconstructions of previously-existing features, for example, his addition of statues and ornament at Notre Dame or the tower turrets at Carcassonne. For Viollet-le-

Duc, authenticity was linked to historic style, proportion, structure, and material of a monument (Dupont 1983). In theory he allowed for restoration of monuments and historic structures so long as they were in keeping with these aspects; in practice,

Viollet-le-Duc was known for undertaking varying degrees of artistic license, though his justification was that authenticity was preserved so long as scale, proportion, and style were retained (Dupont 1983).

John Ruskin (1819-1900) took an opposing view to that of Viollet-le-Duc. He linked authenticity, for him expressed as the emotional appeal and impact of a building, to its age and the visible record of that age on its physical remains (Summerson 1983).

Ruskin accepted no valid argument in favor of demolition of old buildings (Summerson

1983). At the time, restoration practices in England were fairly damaging, and included removal of decayed stone, which damaged monuments’ details and destroyed the patina of history so revered by Ruskin (Summerson 1983). Consequently, Ruskin abhorred restoration (Skarmeas 1983). Ruskin’s most important work dealing with the treatment of old buildings was “The Lamp of Memory” in The Seven Lamps of

Architecture, published in 1849 (Skarmeas 1983); in it, he highlights the importance of memory, continuity from the builder to future generations, the mark of time, as well as

loss of authenticity through conjectural restoration and replacement of original material

(Ruskin 1989).

Ruskin’s legacy in England was carried on by William Morris, who founded the

Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in 1877 (Skarmeas 1983). The approach taken by Morris focused on material as primary to authenticity, but his work employed a strategy similar to treatment of historic fabric in conservation today, namely the retention of as much historic fabric as possible, returning such materials to their original location in the structure, and the need for replacement features or new intrusions to be left unornamented and thus distinguishable from the original fabric (Summerson 1983).

Through much of the nineteenth century, conservation work in Italy followed

Viollet-le-Duc’s principles (Skarmeas 1983). In 1883, however, Camillo Boito (1836-

1914) offered a set of principles meant to be a compromise between Viollet-le-Duc’s approach and that of Giuseppe Valadier, an earlier Italian restorationist whose practices were similar to those recommended by Morris (Skarmeas 1983). Boito suggested that style and material of replacements and additions to older structures should be different from that of the original, new decorative additions should be an abstract version of the original, replacements and additions should be labeled, original features removed from the structure should remain on display in or near the site, and this display should include an explanation of the site’s history (Skarmeas 1983). The views of restorationists like Boito and Morris laid the groundwork for discussions that would eventually lead to the approach seen in the later Athens Charter (Skarmeas 1983).

Conservation Charters

The 1931 Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments was in part a response to loss of historic monuments during the First World War as well as an attempt

to codify appropriate principles of professional restoration (Skarmeas 1983).

Authenticity is not mentioned in the Charter, but the concept is implicitly present in the concern throughout with protecting “character and historical values” of structures (First

International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments

1931:Preface-2). The Charter allowed for the use of modern materials and techniques as necessary, specifying that these should be concealed wherever possible, which suggests a strong link between authenticity and both the presence and appearance of historic fabric and features (First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments 1931). The Charter also highlights the importance of protecting the setting of monuments, relating authenticity to the visual perception of a site being unimpeded by a too-altered setting, including vegetation and modern infrastructure

(First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments

1931). Ruins are also a subject for treatment, their authenticity related to original fabric being retained whenever possible or reburied if excavation reveals that conservation will not be possible (First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic

Monuments 1931).

The 1964 International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of

Monuments and Sites, also known as the Venice Charter, built on the work begun by

the Athens Charter to create internationally agreed-upon guidelines for conserving and

restoring historic buildings. The term authenticity appears in the Venice Charter,

although it is not explicitly defined; instead, the Charter recognizes historic monuments

as part of a shared human heritage that should be passed on to future generations “in the full richness of their authenticity.” (ICOMOS 1964:1) Clues to what constitutes an

understanding of this authenticity are to be found in the definitions of sites and principles for their treatment. The Charter goes beyond defining heritage sites as simple monuments and their settings to including urban and rural areas, potentially including

“more modest works of the past” that demonstrate cultural significance (ICOMOS

1964:1). An important distinction in understanding the use of authenticity in this Charter is that historic sites are considered not only as works of art, but as potential historic evidence (ICOMOS 1964). As far as treatment is concerned, the Charter considers two main categories, conservation and restoration (ICOMOS 1964). During conservation, which modern preservationists would likely call adaptive use in the US, sites may be re- used, but with minimal alteration to the layout or ornamentation, setting should be preserved, and historic buildings should not be moved from their original settings

(ICOMOS 1964). Restoration is described as much more specialized, and should preserve original fabric, should avoid conjectural reconstructions or replacements, may employ new materials and techniques that have been scientifically demonstrated to be effective, must respect all periods represented at a site rather than attempt to unify it in a single style, and should avoid additions that would detract from the site or its setting

(ICOMOS 1964). Like the Athens Charter, the Venice Charter discusses treatment of ruins, although is more explicit in declaring reconstruction inappropriate beyond the reassembly of parts that still exist (ICOMOS 1964). In 1982, the International Scientific

Committee on Cultural Landscapes (ICOMOS-IFLA) composed the Florence Charter as an addendum to the Venice Charter specifically to deal with conservation of historic gardens (ICOMOS-IFLA 1981). The Florence Charter states that historic gardens must be conserved as any historic site, and links their authenticity to their “plan and…

topography…; vegetation, including its species, proportions, colour schemes, spacing and respective heights…; structural and decorative features; [and] water, running or still, reflecting the sky.” (ICOMOS-IFLA 1981:1)

Australia ICOMOS prepared the first draft of the Burra Charter in 1979, intending to implement it in Australia and refine it over time, then eventually see it replace the

Venice Charter (Australia ICOMOS 1999). The Charter has been revised three times, and the most recent version of the document, released in 1999, is still used to govern

Australian conservation (Australia ICOMOS 1999). Neither the original charter nor the current document uses the term authenticity. Instead, the Charter discusses appropriate identification and treatment of places with cultural significance (Australia ICOMOS

1999). The definition of place in the Charter is extremely broad, including “site, area, land, landscape, building or other work, group of buildings or other works, and… components, contents, spaces, and views.” (Australia ICOMOS 1999:2) Significance can be related to “aesthetic, historic, scientific, social, or spiritual value for past, present or future generations” and is “embodied in the place itself” through “fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings… related places and related objects.” (Australia ICOMOS

1999:2) Traditional materials and methods are preferred over the modern in a

conservation project, hinting at authenticity of process beyond the physical fabric and

association of the site (Australia ICOMOS 1999). Likewise, cultures or groups having a

specific association with a site should continue to be able to participate in its use

(Australia ICOMOS 1999). The Charter recognizes that change at a site may be

necessary, but specifies that any change that may damage its significance should be

reversible, again suggesting that the authenticity of a site is no longer considered to be

tied to strictly physical aspects (Australia ICOMOS 1999). An important and intentional alteration in the 1999 version of the Burra Charter is the broadening of the understanding of significance, in particular in the Charter’s Guidelines:

For any given place the significance will be greater where evidence of the association or event survives in situ, or where the settings are substantially intact, than where it has been changed or evidence does not survive. However, some events or associations may be so important that the place retains significance regardless of subsequent treatment. (Australia ICOMOS 1999:12)

Certainly if a place can retain its significance in the face of substantial change, a new and considerably less fabric-based understanding of authenticity is implied.

The 2000 Machinami Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and

Settlements of Japan seeks to protect not only the physical fabric of small-scale settlements, but also the human activity and lifeways in these areas (Akieda 2007).

Authenticity, Integrity, and Significance in the Late Twentieth Century to the Present

Discussions of authenticity, integrity, and significance from the late Twentieth century onward have often been grounded in an exchange between experts from many nations, frequently in the context of discussing World Heritage and how heritage conservation in one nation can inform practices in others and vice versa. Stemming from the influence of the Athens and Venice Charters and their principles, many conservation mechanisms have developed through the lens of authenticity as it relates to physical historical or aesthetic significance (Araoz 2008). The earliest conception of

authenticity in World Heritage was linked to the site’s retention of some portion of its

original intent, and early concern over authenticity at reconstructed sites reinforced this

focus on materiality in the evaluation of authenticity (Cameron 2009; von Droste and

Bertilsson 1994).

In the first version of the Operational Guidelines, authenticity applied only to cultural sites while integrity applied only to natural sites (UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 1978). The original test of authenticity stemmed from the American concept of integrity (Stovel 2007), and included four categories – design, materials, workmanship, and setting (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1978). It was mainly

ICOMOS experts who were charged with executing the test of authenticity during the nomination process (Cleere 1994), although the evaluations of even the earliest sites indicate the lack of comfort ICOMOS reviewers had with using this tool or with authenticity as a concept, as there are many early evaluations that simply state ‘This site is undeniably authentic,’ with no further explanation (Stovel 1994). Neither have

States Parties understood the concept of authenticity well during the nomination process (von Droste and Bertilsson 1994). Many have treated it as a value in and of itself, treated authenticity and integrity as if they were the same concept, or simply ignored the analysis of authenticity in the nomination documents (Stovel 2007).

Early on, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee acknowledged that significance is both subjective and culturally influenced, explaining that Outstanding

Universal Value refers to a site being representative of the culture to which it belongs, even if it may not be considered of outstanding importance to all persons everywhere

(Cameron 2009). In spite of this, it was not until well after the first inscriptions on the

World Heritage List that authenticity was more fully divorced from conceptions of materiality. The much broader conception of authenticity and significance currently demonstrated in the Operational Guidelines is due in large part to Japan’s ratification of the Convention in 1992 (Cameron 2009) and the concern at the time that many

Japanese and Asian sites would be ineligible due to their traditional patterns of cyclical reconstruction and subsequent destruction of physical fabric, a process often spanning centuries at important sites (Ito 1994).

In 1992 the category of cultural landscapes was added to the World Heritage repertoire, responding to increased pressure on the part of recent signatories to the

Convention (Cameron 2009), many outside Europe and North America. By this time, the

Global Study Working Group had begun examining the issue of representativeness of the World Heritage List in response to a desire to increase the balance of types of sites inscribed (Jukko, et al. 2005). Two approaches have been implemented toward this end, the first being a set of typological frameworks for identifying which sorts of sites are under-represented on the list, and the second an expansion of the understanding of

Outstanding Universal Value and significance to be less Eurocentric and more inclusive

(Cameron 2009).

Shortly thereafter, in 1994, the Nara Conference on Authenticity was held to discuss authenticity and the application of the test of authenticity by ICOMOS (Larsen

1994), as it was becoming apparent that the Eurocentric model of significance and authenticity would prove inadequate to the conditions of sites in many other parts of the world. At the Nara Conference, authenticity was described as being necessary to understand the relationships between the significant elements of a site, rather than as a concept to be applied individually to elements in a standard test (Cunha 1994).

Participants recommended that any test of authenticity should be flexible enough to

accommodate change when that change is reflective of the significant values of the site

(Cunha 1994). As a concept, authenticity was seen as useful not only for the evaluation

of nominations to the World Heritage List, but also in monitoring inscribed sites (Elías

1994) and in managing rehabilitation and revitalization projects at heritage sites

(Fejérdy 1994).

Expert discussion at the Nara Conference also turned to various interpretations of significance, as significance is so intimately linked with expressions of authenticity.

Petzet linked significance to the role of a monument in documenting history and evoking social memory (1994). Di Stefano likewise stressed the importance of spiritual significance in conservation of heritage sites, as it forms a bond between modern humanity and peoples of the past, as well as serves as a reminder of cultural continuity over time (1994). Laenen described the importance of protecting the significant values of a site in the face of change by identifying the features, both tangible and intangible, that must be preserved in order to retain their significance (1994). It was also suggested

that change does not necessarily invalidate the significance of a site so long as the

“essential meaning” of the site remained recognizable over time (Cunha 1994:263).

Members of the public were invited to participate in the pre-conference workshop in

Québec City prior to the Nara Conference of 1994; one of the outcomes of this

public/professional collaboration was the expression of public sentiment regarding “the

right to an authentic, contemporary architecture” (Bumbaru 1994:279).

The end result of the 1994 conference was the Nara Document on Authenticity

(Cameron 2009). It was not until 2005, however, that the test of authenticity was

changed and the Nara Document was then included in the Operational Guidelines for

use by the World Heritage Committee and Advisory Bodies in evaluating the authenticity

of cultural sites nominated to the World Heritage List (UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 2005). The post-2005 test of authenticity, greatly expanded from the original test of four features, includes the attributes, “form and design; materials and substance; use and function; traditions, techniques and management systems; location and setting; language, and other forms of intangible heritage; spirit and feeling; and other internal and external factors” (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a:22). Currently, both cultural and natural sites are evaluated for integrity, which is considered “a measure of wholeness and intactness of the… heritage and its attributes;” the site must have boundaries that contain all elements that express its significance and should not be adversely affected by development or neglect (UNESCO World Heritage Committee

2013a:23). As used in the Operational Guidelines, authenticity is a site’s capacity to express its significance, while integrity speaks to the completeness of the listing and whether or not all elements necessary to that significance are included in the listing and are intact (Stovel 2007).

Significance and authenticity were also topics of primary interest at the 2007

Florence Conference on Values and Criteria in Heritage Conservation, and the influence of the discussions at Nara were certainly evident. Araoz pointed out the need to identify the ‘vessels’ of significance at heritage sites, as these were really what will be conserved as opposed to the significance itself (2008). Likewise, Walker emphasized the importance of first writing a statement of significance before determining an appropriate management plan in order to identify those features most in need of protection, and to avoid a bias against conserving various features due to economic or political concerns (2008). She also recognizes that no statement of significance will be all-encompassing or perfect, and that management plans should not seek to eliminate

values that are not mentioned, which would certainly be detrimental to the authenticity of the site (Walker 2008). Boccardi warned against the possibility of falsely adding values to a site during the process of inscription, rather than simply recognizing the values that already existed according to the site’s cultural context (2008), an act that would also distort the understanding of the site’s authenticity. Firestone discussed aesthetic value in urban areas, pointing out that there were not adequate tools in place to evaluate the aesthetic impact of new development on historic urban fabric (2008).

Furthermore, visual integrity has never been included in the Operational Guidelines, but should be an important consideration in evaluation and monitoring of sites (Stovel

2007).

More recent explorations of significance have also begun to consider the experience of the visitor at a site. Holtorf describes site significance in terms of storytelling, and how visitors to a site will perceive a site’s values in relation to their own stories and identity and how the site expresses or reinforces both, even sites that otherwise have nothing to do with that individual’s linear heritage (2010). Certainly this idea as a facet of significance meshes well with the World Heritage goal of international appreciation and cooperation.

Authenticity, Integrity, and Significance at Different Types of Sites

As broader categories of sites have been added to the heritage conservation agenda, discussions have also turned to a contemporary understanding of how authenticity, integrity, and significance manifest across the spectrum of sites, including archaeological sites, cultural landscapes, industrial sites, site contexts, and Modern sites.

Archaeological sites must retain authenticity in order to be of any evidential value in the future, and to prevent falsification of cultural history (Elías 1994). Ruins present their own challenges as sites to be preserved, having been and typically continuing to be valued by conservationists mainly for their ability to provide historic evidence (Bell

2008). However, ruins also have an ability to evoke strong human emotion, and this can create a stronger association with and continuity to the past than empirical evidence can

(Bell 2008). Not only ruins of great sites, but also small ruins, such as boundary markers or cairns, can evoke many of these same emotions and also contribute to a sense of place, and should thus be considered as elements of value to conserve (Bell 2008).

Just as at other types of sites, the authenticity of a landscape is manifested in

relation to how well those characteristics that embody the landscape’s significance still

exist (Mitchell 1994). Vegetation should be considered perishable, as an element whose

authenticity relies less on being original to the landscape than on its renewability; plants

should be chosen for historical accuracy to ensure similarity of color and scent in

relation to the original creation and experience (Feliú 1994). Alterations even to

designed landscapes may be necessary in order to maintain a continuity of use as

cultural needs and patterns change over time, for instance, alterations that have been

made to Central Park or improvements for modern safety standards at a site (Mitchell

1994).

Industrial sites are more likely to express authenticity as a workplace or point of

production, rather than in strictly material terms, as parts and machines will be replaced

and reconfigured as they wear out or as technological improvements become available

(Trinder 1994). Canals, much like industrial sites with their mechanical elements, are

subject to a great deal of replacement of features and upgrades to technology over time; this should not be considered in violation of the concept of authenticity, however, as this change in technological elements is inherent in the significance of the site

(Cameron 1994).

Authenticity of setting, an element in both the original and current test of authenticity in the Operational Guidelines, has not always been present at sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, for example, two Japanese monuments in the heart of Kyoto and Independence Hall in the US (Cleere 1994). For sites that retain a relatively intact setting, however, ICOMOS considers setting an important element to protect, either as a part of the inscription or through a buffer zone (Cleere 1994), depending on whether the setting also exhibits the site’s significance. The significance of Modern architecture lies in social and cultural conception, and it is more important for sites relating to the Modern Movement to reflect authenticity of concept than through unaltered setting, materials, or even design over time (Henket and Tummers 1994).

Findings

The evolution of the concept of authenticity can be linked to broadening views on

categories of sites worthy of conservation and on the types of significant values they

represent. The nineteenth century saw two schools of thought, one emphasizing

reconstruction based on an ideal of material, form, and historical style and another

emphasizing the value of patina and a building’s age, converge on an approach that

valued original fabric as distinguished from reconstruction. This importance placed on

fabric continued into the twentieth century in the crafting of both the Athens and Venice

Charters, although notions of types of sites that should be preserved continued to

expand. As conservation grew to be a field with worldwide participation and

cooperation, these categories of both site types and vehicles of authenticity expanded further, sparking a great deal of debate. There is no universal definition of authenticity, which is a concept that must be culturally-based rather than a set value (Lowenthal

1994), one that is further shaped by both inhabitants and visitors to a site through their perceptions and actions (Alberts and Hazen 2010). Today the general approach is to acknowledge the cultural, subjective basis of significance and authenticity as whichever tangible or intangible elements allow that significance to be expressed.

CHAPTER 3 BUFFER ZONES IN WORLD HERITAGE: THE PRACTICE

This chapter elaborates on the treatment of buffer zones in both relevant World

Heritage documents and in the literature. As the World Heritage Committee stance on buffer zones has changed since the inception of the World Heritage Convention, the history of guidelines for buffer zones and the current requirements and recommendations for States Parties are discussed. Requests by the World Heritage

Committee and States Parties for more information about buffer zones, their creation, and their implementation have resulted in two expert meetings, the findings of which are covered in this section. A discussion of the published case studies regarding buffer zones, as well as expert opinions on issues, concerns, and opportunities related to buffer zones is also included. Both the World Heritage documents and literature are important to understanding current ideas about best practices and needs regarding the implementation of buffer zones.

Buffer Zones in UNESCO Documents

The document that is used to guide States Parties, the World Heritage

Committee, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, and Advisory Bodies in implementing the World Heritage Convention is known as the Operational Guidelines for the

Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, often referred to simply as the

Operational Guidelines. The original version of the Operational Guidelines was published in 1977. Revisions to the Operational Guidelines were published in 1978,

1980, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2013. Only the revisions in 1980, 1988, and 2005 included changes to the sections regarding buffer zones. The publication Preparing World Heritage Nominations is a

guide for States Parties to assist in creating the document to nominate a site to the

World Heritage List; the first edition was published in 2010, and the second edition after the update to the Operational Guidelines in 2011.

The first version of the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the

World Heritage Convention states that a buffer zone “may be applied where appropriate.” (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1977:16)1 If a nomination included a

buffer zone, the World Heritage Committee required information regarding the

boundaries of both the site to be inscribed and its buffer zone, which would be

determined through ‘technical studies’ and have ‘adequate protection’ (UNESCO World

Heritage Committee 1977)2

In 1980, the Operational Guidelines were revised to state that a buffer zone

should be proposed when necessary for the conservation of a natural or cultural site

(UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1980)3 A buffer zone was defined as “an area

surrounding the property which has an essential influence on the physical state of the

property and/or the way in which the property is perceived.” (UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 1980:4) The 1980 version of the Operational Guidelines also states that a

buffer zone should be determined through ‘technical studies’ but also adds that the

nomination file should describe the size and characteristics of the buffer zone as well as

include a map of its boundaries. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1980)

In 1988, the Operational Guidelines were again revised to define a buffer zone as

“an area surrounding a property which has restrictions placed on its use to give an

1 1977 Operational Guidelines paragraph IV.26.

2 1977 Operational Guidelines paragraphs IV.26.a and IV.26.b.

3 1980 Operational Guidelines paragraph I.B.12.

added layer of protection,” while all other information in the paragraph on buffer zones remained unaltered. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1988:4)4

The 2005 Operational Guidelines included substantial changes to the

requirements regarding buffer zones. The text remained quite similar in substance, but

a new paragraph was added requiring nominations to include a justification as to why

there was no buffer zone if the State Party did not create one (UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 2005)5, effectively making a buffer zone a requirement for all nominations.

The definition and description of the concept was also elaborated upon, to state that “a

buffer zone is an area 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 to the property.” (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2005:25)6 A

buffer zone might 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.” (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2005:25) In addition

to information on the boundaries, characteristics, and authorized uses within the buffer

zone, the 2005 Operational Guidelines request an explanation as to the specific

protections the buffer zone provides to the property. (UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 2005)7

The UNESCO guide Preparing World Heritage Nominations, Second Edition,

discusses buffer zones in general, provides general advice on delineating buffer zones,

4 1988 Operational Guidelines paragraph I.B.17.

5 2005 Operational Guidelines paragraph II.F.106.

6 2005 Operational Guidelines paragraph II.F.104.

7 2005 Operational Guidelines paragraphs II.F.104 and II.F.105.

and offers examples of buffer zones at several World Heritage sites. The guide describes buffer zones as one conservation tool among many, and specifically as a tool to safeguard a site’s authenticity and integrity (Marshall 2011). The guide also emphasizes the importance of stakeholder participation and the inclusion of the buffer zone in the management of the site (Marshall 2011). According to the guide, a buffer zone may simply be an adjacent area, or may be an area that supports the inscribed site in some way, for example, by providing services for tourists (Marshall 2011). The

guide lays out five considerations in determining a buffer zone:

• Analysis of the site’s OUV and integrity;

• Ability of the buffer zone to offer protection for the inscribed site;

• Local or national laws that may be used to regulate the buffer zone;

• Ability of the buffer zone to function for its intended purpose;

• A buffer zone boundary that protects the site’s OUV from outside pressures (Marshall 2011)

The guide also notes that a buffer zone is not always required, particularly in the case of

underground sites or properties that are protected through other means (Marshall

2011).

International Interest in Buffer Zones at World Heritage Sites

Two events precipitated UNESCO’s recent interest in buffer zones, a building

project near the Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome)8 World Heritage site in

Japan (ICLAFI 2008), and the transnational nomination to the World Heritage List of the

Rhaetian Railway in the Albula/Bernina Landscapes in Switzerland and Italy (Mürner

2009). The building project in Japan sparked an international conference of legal

8 When the full name of a World Heritage site is used within this document, the official English name is employed, including capitalization and punctuation as specified on the World Heritage List.

experts in 2006. ICOMOS International’s International Committee on Legal,

Administrative and Financial Issues (ICLAFI) conducted the conference at Hiroshima,

Japan to discuss buffer zones in relation to the World Heritage Convention, examining the implementation and use of buffer zones in multiple nations with varying legal frameworks and heritage concerns (ICLAFI 2008). Attending experts presented several case studies about specific sites or about an overall national approach illustrating successes and issues. The ICLAFI conference resulted in a request for ICOMOS to further promote and study buffer zones (ICLAFI 2008). The nomination of the Rhaetian

Railway triggered a meeting of experts in Davos, Switzerland in 2008 (Mürner 2009), which resulted in several case studies as well as a discussion of issues faced in the implementation of buffer zones and how buffer zones should function. The section of the Operational Guidelines concerning buffer zones has not been updated since 2005, thus it has not changed since either of the expert meetings on buffer zones. The manual assisting States Parties in the preparation of nominations was first published in 2010, after the meetings.

Origin of Buffer Zones at Cultural World Heritage Sites

Although buffer zones and similar strategies predate the World Heritage

Program, buffer zones as used at World Heritage sites stem from the Man and the

Biosphere program, where they were intended both to protect and enhance the primary site (Turner 2009). Under the Man and the Biosphere Program, sites are divided into three sections, the core area, a buffer zone, and a transition area, with the buffer zone normally being the smallest of the three (MAB 2009). The core area is analogous to the inscribed site on the World Heritage List, while the buffer zone is an area of restricted activity directly adjacent to the core area; the transition area allows more activities than

the buffer zone and is limited to sustainable uses (MAB 2009). Over time, the concept of a buffer zone as an area separating a core zone from the area around it has transformed into the modern notion of a buffer zone as a protective management tool bordering a culturally significant site (ICCROM 2009). Buffer zones at natural sites more often continue to play the dual roles of separation and protection, with more recent strategies also using them to enhance a core zone or inscribed site, for example, by providing links for wildlife between discrete areas of similar habitat (UNESCO World

Heritage Centre 2009b); such a strategy could also prove useful for cultural landscapes if the entire area exhibiting OUV is not contiguous.

Buffer Zones: Definition and Purpose

A buffer zone is an area adjacent to or surrounding an area of significance needing protection. A buffer zone at a World Heritage site is used to protect the inscribed site from negative external influences and does not share the OUV of the inscribed site (Mürner 2009; UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2009b). Although the buffer zone is not part of the inscribed site, it is a tool for its protection (ICCROM 2009) and the aim is protection of the World Heritage site, not the buffer zone itself (Stovel

2009). According to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, a buffer zone may be the parcel of land on which a World Heritage site is located, an area around a site designated with additional protections, the municipality in which a World Heritage site is located, or may simply be an area around the inscribed site (2009b). A single site may also have multiple buffer zones (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2009b) or a tiered buffer zone system (Martorell Carreño 2006; Mürner 2009).

At the 2005 ICOMOS General Assembly, ICOMOS members drafted the Xi’an

Declaration, which deals with a site’s setting. Setting has been one component of the

test for authenticity of a World Heritage site since the implementation of the World

Heritage List (Stovel 2009). According to the Xi’an Declaration, setting includes both the immediate surroundings of a heritage site as well as “interaction with the natural environment; past or present social or spiritual practices, customs, traditional knowledge, use or activities” and may relate to “social and spiritual, historic, artistic, aesthetic, natural, scientific, or other cultural values.” (ICOMOS 2005:2) While in some

instances, it may be deemed appropriate to include the setting within the boundaries of

the inscribed site, in others the setting may be important to the site without incorporating

the identified OUV, in which case a buffer zone may be useful (Stovel 2009). In the case

of the Rhaetian Railway, the site was originally nominated by Switzerland and Italy as a

cultural landscape that included a large area around the railway line with the intent to

link the railway with noteworthy views or villages that it passed through (Mürner 2009).

Rather than incorporate this entire area into the inscribed site, given that much of it did

not express the identified OUV, the solution was to create a buffer system that includes

the setting of the railway in the buffer zone rather than within the boundaries of the site

(Mürner 2009).

Buffer Zones: Implementation and Legislation

So far as the implementation and treatment of buffer zones is concerned, there is general consensus among experts that the first step is to carefully establish the inscribed site’s OUV and draw boundaries that contain all areas that express this value

(ICCROM 2009; UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2009b). Furthermore, possible threats

to the OUV and integrity of the inscribed site should be identified so that appropriate

buffer zone boundaries can be designated to protect the site from external threats,

understanding that a single inscribed site may have more than one buffer zone

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2009b). Effective buffer zones should safeguard the function of an inscribed site within its context and community, visual characteristics of the inscribed site, spatial connections between the site and its setting; and mitigate external threats to the site, for instance, urban development or tourism (Staneva

2006b). Local stakeholders should be involved in the process of designating regulations within the buffer zone (World Heritage Committee 2009). The World Heritage

Committee interprets the Operational Guidelines to mean that changes to and development within the buffer zone of an inscribed site must be approved by the World

Heritage Committee (Stovel 2009).

The nomination of the Rhaetian Railway to the World Heritage List brought the issue of the buffer zone into highlight, particularly regarding the role of a buffer zone and

determining the boundaries of both an inscribed site and its buffer zone. For much of

the history of the World Heritage List, States Parties have used varying methods for

determining the proposed boundaries of an inscribed site – ranging from a strict

confinement to areas demonstrating the OUV of the site, to areas encompassing the

past extent of a site, or based on modern municipal or jurisdictional boundaries (Stovel

2009). Approaches to the delineation of buffer zones have been even more varied

(Stovel 2009).

Giora Solar completed a paper for ICOMOS about buffer zones, and although it

is not publicly available, its main points have been summarized in the ICOMOS position

paper for the 2008 expert meeting in Davos. Solar noted that a buffer zone must have

legal regulations, rather than simply being a boundary on a map, and that local

authorities and management bodies must be aware of the buffer zone’s existence and

role (Stovel 2009). Solar further recommended a checklist for ICOMOS experts who would be evaluating nominations prior to inscription, summarized below:

• What are the the values of the site and how are they safeguarded by the buffer zone?

• What issues may threaten the site and how does the buffer zone help protect against them?

• How big should the buffer zone be, and how should its boundaries be determined?

• What regulations apply within the buffer zone?

• Which agency or body is responsible for managing the buffer zone, and how is it managed?

• Does the buffer zone have legal status?

• What legislation applies to regulations within the buffer zone?

• Should the nomination be referred back to the State Party without being inscribed if the buffer zone is inadequate? (Stovel 2009)

In many cases, the legal basis for a buffer zone lies in zoning regulations

(ICCROM 2009; Stovel 2009). Land use and planning tools are also commonly used to create buffer zones, and some countries have legislation creating protected areas at a measured distance from archaeological sites (ICCROM 2009). Published case studies from the ICLAFI meeting at Hiroshima and expert meeting at Davos also offer insight into how various nations establish buffer zones for cultural sites or protect the surroundings of heritage sites, particularly World Heritage sites. Broadly speaking, the two most common approaches to creating buffer zones are through heritage legislation, typically where it calls for the protection of a small area around a monument, and through spatial planning laws. Several nations also use national park legislation, particularly when the inscribed World Heritage site is a smaller subset within a national

park. Some nations employ environmental law in the creation of buffer zones at cultural sites, although frequently this is in the case of cultural landscapes. Discussed below are regulatory approaches relating to buffer zones as described in the published case studies about specific World Heritage sites and/or States Parties; it is possible that other legislation to protect heritage exists within a given nation, but was not described in the case study.

Case studies involving heritage legislation used to establish buffer zones

Croatia’s Law on the Protection and Preservation of Cultural Goods can be used to create buffer zones by establishing multiple zones, each of which has different regulations, for instance, at the Episcopal Complex of the Euphrasian Basilica in the

Historic Centre of Poreč, with strict controls regarding alteration of historic structures within the main site and looser regulations allowing more leeway in alteration of structures within the buffer zone (Antolović 2006). Sri Lanka’s Antiquities Ordinance calls for a protective zone of 400 m around monuments, and was one tool used in the creation of protective areas around monuments at the Sacred City of Kandy and the

Ancient City of Sigiriya, although neither World Heritage site was inscribed with a buffer zone (Mandawala 2006). Likewise, Poland’s Law on the Protection of the Territories of

Former Nazi Death Camps establishes a zone regulating construction and activities around each of the eight death camps (Kowalski 2006), although the only camp inscribed on the World Heritage List, Auschwitz Birkenau, was inscribed without a buffer zone (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015b). Morocco’s Archaeological Site of

Volubilis was inscribed with a buffer zone based on a protective zone prohibiting alterations to Volubilis’s surroundings and established by decrees made in 1920 and

1921 (Salih 2009). Sweden’s Cultural Monuments Act recognizes three categories of

sites, although protects only two of these categories – archaeological remains and historic sites – with provisions allowing for regulations on their surroundings; ecclesiastical sites have no provision for their surroundings under Swedish heritage code (Adlercreutz 2006). The United States of America relies on many different types of ordinances and laws to protect World Heritage sites, depending on what legislation applies at any given location; the American World Heritage sites described in the literature are natural sites, although the author does discuss many heritage legislation categories, including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, local preservation laws, National Heritage Areas, conservation easements, and development rights transfers as possible options in creating a buffer zone (Reap 2006). Sri Lanka, Sweden, and the United States of America also rely on other categories of legislation to create buffer zones, as discussed below.

Case studies involving spatial planning regulations used to create buffer zones

Australia used state- and regional-level spatial planning to establish a buffer zone for the Sydney Opera House, creating an amendment to the Harbour Regional

Environment Plan to regulate development and to protect viewsheds to and from the opera house (Wiffen 2006). Old Rauma in Finland has a buffer zone created using zoning and planning legislation (Virtala 2006). Sweden uses spatial planning legislation to protect the surroundings when the setting of an inscribed site would be otherwise unprotected under heritage law, although not all Swedish World Heritage sites have buffer zones designated under either set of laws (Adlercreutz 2006). As there is no specific law regarding buffer zones in the United States of America, World Heritage sites must be protected through whichever laws are available in a given area, and these may include urban planning laws, particularly at the local level (Reap 2006). Bulgaria

relies on the Territory Management Act of 1997 to regulate and manage areas adjacent to cultural sites, although the laws specifically allowing for the designation of buffer zones only do so for natural sites (Staneva 2006a).

Many World Heritage sites have no official buffer zone, but may have surroundings protected by spatial planning laws nonetheless. The Flemish region of

Belgium has no heritage legislation allowing for the creation of buffer zones, and relies instead on zoning overlays and urban planning legislation to protect the surroundings of urban sites; the specific World Heritage sites mentioned in the literature do not have buffer zones, but are within urban areas protected by spatial planning regulations

(Draye 2006). Likewise, the Netherlands has no heritage legislation that allows for the protection of surroundings, although it is possible that a World Heritage sites setting may be protected if it is surrounded by unrelated non-inscribed sites that are also

protected by heritage legislation or within a designated protected townscape as created

under spatial planning law (de Wit 2006). The Wartburg Castle in Germany has no

buffer zone, but is surrounded by an area protected through state-level planning

regulations, which must observe federal planning law (von Treutzschler 2006). The Old

City of Berne in Switzerland is another example of a site with no official buffer zone, but

whose surrounding areas are protected through planning regulations (Furrer 2009).

Neither Kandy nor Sigiriya in Sri Lanka have buffer zones, although the Town and

Country Planning Ordinance of 1916 and the Urban Development Law of 1978 protect

urban areas around monuments at both sites (Mandawala 2006).

Case studies involving environmental or national park legislation used to create buffer zones

The buffer zone of the Quebrada de Humahuaca in Argentina was established on the basis of Law 5.206 of the General Law of the Environment, and places restrictions on development and height of construction within the panoramic area of the quebrada

(Martorell Carreño 2006). Australia has the federal-level Environmental Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999, allowing protection for both natural and cultural heritage, as well as legislation allowing the establishment of national parks administered at the state level, which are primarily natural sites but may include some cultural features (Wiffen 2006). Israel’s cultural site Incense Route and the Desert Cities in the

Negev is protected as part of the national park/nature reserve system, which includes both the inscribed site and its buffer zone (Martorell Carreño 2006). Sweden’s

Environmental Code could be used to regulate buffer zones for cultural landscapes

(Adlercreutz 2006). The United States of America has several national parks inscribed on the World Heritage List, most of which are inscribed as natural sites, although there is currently no clause in the National Park Service Organic Act allowing for the protection of areas outside these parks (Reap 2006).

Buffer Zones: Issues and Concerns

Many World Heritage sites were originally inscribed without buffer zones, particularly those inscribed early in the program (Stovel 2009), and in most cases, no buffer zone has been retroactively added after inscription. The lack of a buffer zone at these sites is frequently cited as a concern (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2009b), both in terms of possible future impact and also as a direct cause of ongoing issues at

World Heritage sites. In many cases, the lack of a buffer zone is linked to inappropriate

development, particularly urban development and high rises near a World Heritage site

(Stovel 2009). Case studies that have specifically mentioned the lack of buffer zone as an issue include the Wartburg in Germany, where wind farms were proposed and approved within viewsheds of the site (von Treutzschler 2006); high rises constructed and planned near the Cologne Cathedral in Germany (Machat 2006); and two sets of ruins, Kilwa Kisiwani and Songo Mnara in Tanzania, where urban development is threatening the archaeological remains (Maro 2009). There are, however, also case studies that suggest buffer zones may not always be necessary. For example, Uluru-

Kata Tjuta (formerly known as Ayers Rock – Mount Olga) in Australia is quite remote and is surrounded by a large national park, and the Royal Melbourne Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens, also in Australia, which has no designated buffer zone, but whose gardens effectively act as a buffer zone (Wiffen 2006). The write-up for the international

expert meeting at Davos also suggests that in some cases where there is a sharp

distinction between a site and its surroundings, a buffer zone may be unnecessary or

inappropriate, as it might introduce a transitional area or gradation that never previously

existed (Turner 2009). The UNESCO manual for preparing nominations suggests that

subterranean sites may not require a buffer zone, and also offers the example of a site

that wholly encompasses a set of islands, so that a buffer zone is unnecessary in the

surrounding sea (Marshall 2011). There may also be other instances in which a buffer

zone is unnecessary or inappropriate, for example, for sites in areas that have always

been subject to a great deal of change and redevelopment (de Wit 2006).

Another common issue is buffer zones existing but being inadequate to protect

the inscribed site, which may be due to the buffer zone being too small, having unclear

boundaries, or incompatible activities occurring within the buffer zone (UNESCO World

Heritage Centre 2009b). It is also possible for a State Party to designate a buffer zone without having attached any specific conditions or regulations that govern it, in which case it provides no more protection for the inscribed site than if there were no buffer zone (Stovel 2009). Discussions and examples of inadequate buffer zones in the literature are common. The Rideau Canal in Canada is described as being too small, being only 30 meters around the canal itself, and not large enough to protect important views (Stovel 2009). The Route of Santiago de Campostela in Spain has a buffer zone of 30 meters from the site boundaries – the route and attendant towns – although the site boundaries themselves are unclear, and the buffer zone does not protect important views along the route (Martorell Carreño 2006). The historic section of Rauma in

Finland has a buffer zone, but large-scale development is still allowed there, in spite of attempts by Finland’s National Board of Antiquities and the Society of Old Rauma to block projects that are out of scale with the historic center or might negatively impact the

economic viability of the commercial sections of the historic center (Virtala 2006). The

archaeological site of the Roman city of Volubilis in Morocco has a buffer zone drawn

based on a 50 km2 area established around the site in 1920, although development

from nearby urban areas is encroaching on the buffer zone and site and further

designation of appropriate development within the buffer zone is necessary to protect

the site (Salih 2009).

An issue related to inadequate buffer zones, and one that is increasingly

becoming a problem at World Heritage sites, is activity outside the buffer zone that still

has a negative impact on the inscribed site. Typically this is related to development,

particularly high-rise construction that can be seen from a great distance, with a negative visual impact on the inscribed site (ICCROM 2009; UNESCO World Heritage

Centre 2009b). There are also concerns that the presence of a buffer zone could be used to justify activity that would be detrimental to the World Heritage site simply because it takes place outside the site and its buffer zone (Stovel 2009), especially if standards are perceived as lesser outside the buffer zone (Adlercreutz 2006). Recent cases involving wind farms near World Heritage sites, both with and without buffer zones, for example, near Mont-Saint-Michel in France and near the Wartburg in

Germany, highlight the issue of extremely tall structures and unanticipated visual impact on sites. As a buffer zone cannot, however, incorporate too vast a territory or anticipate all possible impacts on an inscribed site, other protective tools must be combined with legislation protecting the site and the buffer zone itself. At two natural World Heritage sites in Australia – Nathan Dam and the Wet Tropics World Heritage Areas – the

Federal Court ruled that intervention to protect a World Heritage site or to evaluate potential impact was legal even though the possibly harmful activities were outside both the inscribed site and the buffer zone in each case (Wiffen 2006). Likewise, at the

Wartburg in Germany, the courts ruled to halt construction of wind farms visible from the site, although their proposed locations were outside the site boundaries and there was no buffer zone (von Treutzschler 2006).

There are also concerns that in some instances, buffer zones could be detrimental to an inscribed site. In particular, there is worry that overly strict controls within a buffer zone could contribute to museification of an inscribed site (Stovel 2009).

Restrictions within a buffer zone might also impact important social, cultural, or

economic practices that support the inscribed site and its OUV (Stovel 2009). For urban settings, where one portion of an urban area is inscribed, a buffer zone has the potential to isolate the inscribed area from the rest of the urban context (Turner 2009).

Many difficulties implementing and managing buffer zones relate to legislative and administrative issues (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2009b). Often there is a lack of national legislation for the creation of buffer zones (ICCROM 2009), for example, there are no Flemish laws for designating buffer zones (Draye 2006), and the heritage legislation of the Netherlands has no provisions for buffer zones (de Wit 2006). Often this is because national legislation dealing with heritage conservation emphasizes single monuments rather than districts (Turner 2009). In many nations, the deficit is remedied by using zoning or land use provisions (Stovel 2009), although most such provisions rarely have specific measures concerning buffer zones, simply acting as a means of regulation separate from that of heritage legislation. This means that regulations and restrictions within a buffer zone may be unclear (Adlercreutz 2006).

Further complicating the issue are the numerous authorities responsible for World

Heritage sites and their buffer zones. It is not uncommon for an inscribed site to be regulated by a different authority or municipality than its buffer zone (Turner 2009), or that the boundaries of a buffer zone do not align with local legislative boundaries (Stovel

2009). However, as there are inscribed sites that span multiple legislative authorities, and even sites that span the boundaries of nations, this is more a matter to be considered in creating management bodies for sites and their buffer zones than a problem inherent in buffer zones, themselves. One problem that does arise, however, is

that there is often little understanding of a buffer zone’s role or function at the local level

(Turner 2009), the level at which much site administration takes place in many countries, although the nomination is often prepared at the national level.

Issues also arise through policy for implementation of buffer zones in the World

Heritage program. Many States Parties do not understand the concepts of authenticity and integrity, nor how buffer zones relate to these concepts (Stovel 2009) States Parties

may also include buffer zones in nominations for sites that do not need them, as the

Operational Guidelines specify that the nomination must include a justification if no

buffer zone is delineated (ICCROM 2009). Furthermore, the Operational Guidelines include no instructions for handling areas that fall outside the buffer zone but that may impact the site’s OUV (Stovel 2009). Finally, although the Operational Guidelines require the State Party to provide an explanation of the buffer zone in the nomination, including how its boundaries were chosen, its characteristics, how it relates to the site and the site’s OUV, and the regulations that govern it, such an explanation is by no means always included in the nomination file. For example, the mixed site Quebrada de

Humahuaca in Argentina has a buffer zone whose boundaries appear to follow “the geographic configuration of the Quebrada,” but no concrete explanation or description is provided in the nomination file (Martorell Carreño 2006:19).

Buffer Zones: Possibilities and Opportunities

The most common description of a buffer zone entails its utility as protection against inappropriate development, particularly high-rise development (ICCROM 2009).

One recent example is the case of the Roman city of Volubilis in Morocco, where the existing buffer zone is under consideration for changes to increase protection from urban development (Salih 2009). In 2008 the World Heritage Committee approved a buffer zone for the Cologne Cathedral in Germany (UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 2008a). The cathedral had been negatively impacted by the construction of nearby high-rises, and others had been proposed and then postponed (Machat 2006).

Another extremely common role for buffer zones is to protect views to and from a

World Heritage site (ICCROM 2009). Indeed, this was one of the important aspects of

the Rhaetian Railway nomination, which originally included significant views within the

boundaries of the proposed site; eventually a three-tier buffer zone system was created

to protect nearby towns and more distant views without including them in the inscribed

site (Mürner 2009). The buffer zone of the Sydney Opera House in Australia is another

whose regulations include views to and from the site (Wiffen 2006).

Buffer zones have also been suggested as a tool to protect site categories that

differ from traditional monuments or even urban centers. Archaeological sites face a

unique challenge in that the distinct boundaries of the site itself may not always be

known, as the entire site may not have been excavated (Mujica 2009). Given that only

areas known to express the OUV of the site can be inscribed on the World Heritage List,

a buffer zone may be an opportunity to protect undiscovered or unexcavated remains

(Mujica 2009). This may relate to maintaining a site’s integrity, even for sites that are not

specifically or exclusively archaeological sites, by protecting areas that may someday

prove to be linked to the site’s OUV, for example, because it does not currently

demonstrate a level of conservation or management that allows it to be part of the

inscribed site (Stovel 2009).

Cultural routes and serial sites also create unique challenges for inscription and

protection. In some cases, a cultural route is inscribed as a serial site, or a series of

discontinuous sites that comprise the entire property. Examples of this include the

Works of Antonio Gaudi in Spain, which has an individual buffer zone for each section of the property, and the Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France (Martorell Carreño

2006), which has no buffer zone for the route or for the serial sites (UNESCO World

Heritage Centre 2015m). The Monuments of Ancient Kyoto in Japan are also inscribed

as a cultural route comprised of serial sites, although this property has two buffer zones,

individual zones for each site and a larger buffer zone that encompasses all the

individual sites and their buffer zones (Martorell Carreño 2006).

Depending on their purpose and legislative basis, buffer zones may also be a

tool for regulating activities near a World Heritage site. For example, Polish sites related

to Nazi concentration camps have zones around them that regulate not just

construction, but commercial activity and public gatherings, respecting the “solemnity or

character of the Monument” (Kowalski 2006:5). The proposed buffer zone at the Ruins

of Songo Mnara in Tanzania likewise include restrictions on construction, but may also

prohibit specific agricultural practices, namely livestock grazing and cultivation (Maro

2009).

Buffer zones may also be useful both in enhancing the inscribed site and

benefiting the local community (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2009b). In what may

be the earliest legislation allowing for the creation of buffer zones, Spain enacted a law

in 1926 to protect urban areas that are “artistic national treasures” (Villanueva 2006:1).

The current form of this Spanish law includes a provision requiring 1% of the budget of

any project receiving State financing to be set aside for work that encourages

preservation of heritage resources or that promotes “artistic creativity” within the buffer

zone (Villanueva 2006:3). At Tel Aviv, the buffer zone offers an opportunity to place

services such as parking, public buildings, and hospitals that might be difficult to construct within the inscribed site (Berkowitz and Hoffman 2009). The buffer zone of the sacred mountain Mount Huangshan in China is being altered to help reduce negative impact on the inscribed site by providing additional tourist accommodations and facilities, for example, more areas for tourists to visit during peak season (Marshall

2011; Yang 2009). The transnational property Jesuit Missions of the Guaranis in

Argentina and Brazil is comprised of a series of archaeological sites whose extents are imperfectly known; not only is a buffer zone an option to include areas that may have unidentified archaeological remains, but the buffer zone could create an opportunity for sustainable development among local communities, in keeping with the historical sustainability of the missions (Mujica 2009).

Findings

There are several published case studies of varying levels of detail regarding

buffer zones that have focused on the theory of buffer zones, laws allowing their

implementation, problems in areas in which the author felt that having a buffer zone

might have prevented issues, and problems at sites where the author felt that the buffer

zone was inadequate. However, as ICOMOS pointed out at the 2008 expert meeting at

Davos, there have been no studies that explicitly examine the efficacy of buffer zones

(Stovel 2009), nor have there been any since then. Such studies could, for instance,

examine a site before and after inscription with a buffer zone; before and after the

addition of a buffer zone to a site previously inscribed; or compare two similar sites, one

with and one without a buffer zone. The anecdotal evidence and available case studies

suggest that buffer zones have an important role to play in protecting World Heritage

sites, but that there is a need for both a consistent method for creating and evaluating

buffer zones, as well as for subsequent monitoring of the buffer zone after implementation.

CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains the general method employed to gather and analyze the data used to establish an approach to create and monitor buffer zones at World

Heritage sites. The final approach described in the analysis of this research includes steps for States Parties to follow in delineating a buffer zone, a buffer zone typology, and an indicator framework to aid in establishing a monitoring system, all based on existing buffer zone literature, the case studies examined in this research, and current practices endorsed by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Following is an explanation of the selection and analysis process for the case studies and a discussion of the available documentation, its relevance, and its validity.

Criteria for Selection and Analysis of French World Heritage Sites for Study

Selection of Case Studies

As of the 2014 decision cycle, there are 1007 sites inscribed on the UNESCO

World Heritage List, of which 779 are cultural and 31 are mixed cultural and natural sites (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015r). In order to select cases to examine the issue of buffer zones beyond those described in the literature, a step-wise exclusion process was used to narrow the number of cases. For the purposes of this study, a single case study is comprised of a single World Heritage site from its time of inscription through the beginning of the 2015 decision cycle in March 2015.

Cultural World Heritage sites

The first selection criterion was to choose sites inscribed on the World Heritage

List for at least one cultural criterion of significance. The only mixed cultural and natural

site in France is also a transnational site; it was excluded in order to focus on sites wholly within France, as discussed below.

French World Heritage sites

The second selection criterion was to examine sites in France. Choosing a single

nation allowed for a consistent comparison of legislation and similarity in approach to

document preparation. France has been a signatory of the World Heritage Convention

since 1975, prior to the creation of the World Heritage List, and has been actively

involved in successfully nominating sites to the List since the first round of inscriptions in

1979. France submits a nomination nearly every cycle, so there is a broad range of

sites from which to choose, both in terms of inscription date and type of site.

Furthermore, France has provided comprehensive documentation, including detailed

maps of boundaries and buffer zones as appropriate, for nearly every site inscribed,

facilitating the analysis of cases. Most importantly for research on buffer zones, as of

the Davos expert meeting on buffer zones, France is one of the few nations that has

implemented a national policy to retroactively add buffer zones to sites inscribed prior to

their requirement (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2009b), making these sites valuable

for comparing the process of inscribing a site with a buffer zone to the process of adding

a buffer zone later. Finally, personal site visits to several World Heritage sites in France,

allowed the evaluation of the relevant documents with personal knowledge of those

sites in mind.

Typology of sites

There are 35 cultural sites in France and one mixed site (UNESCO World

Heritage Centre 2015r), leaving the need to narrow the range of case studies further.

Eliminating the mixed and transnational sites, this left a choice between 33 cultural

sites. These sites were further narrowed using the typology of sites developed for the report, The World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps – an Action Plan for the Future

(Appendix C), which is used by both ICOMOS and the UNESCO World Heritage

Committee in evaluating and comparing sites nominated for inscription. This typology relies on categorizing a site by its primary typological association, for example, as a

religious site, an urban settlement, or an archaeological site (Jukko, et al. 2005). Many

of the issues described at World Heritage sites in general and with buffer zones in

particular relate to characteristics often typified by this categorization. Furthermore, this

typology is a tool available to States Parties, and can easily relate similarity of features

in terms of defining or examining a buffer zone. The typology itself includes 14 types,

many of which are similar in terms of physical site conditions. This allows a much

smaller number of sites, as a single site can often adequately represent more than one

type. Sites were grouped based on primary fit and defining features, so for instance, an

urban district that is inscribed but also includes a cathedral within its bounds would be

grouped with urban settlements rather than with religious sites.

Buffer zone status

The next selection criterion depended on buffer zone status. In order to examine the need for buffer zones and, if the need exists, how they are delineated, it is important to have case studies that represent sites with no buffer zone, sites inscribed with a

buffer zone, and sites that were inscribed without a buffer zone but had one

retroactively added.

Analysis of Case Studies

This research focuses on the designation of buffer zones at World Heritage sites

– how this is accomplished and whether or not buffer zones are necessary. Each case study was analyzed based on the following categories of information:

General site description

In addition to the general site and context features, the site’s buffer zone status, and surface area of both the inscribed site and buffer zone are included.

Site OUV, authenticity and integrity, and inscription criteria

The primary purpose of a buffer zone is as a tool to protect an inscribed World

Heritage site. By extrapolation, the buffer zone is one means of protecting the features that express the significance of the site. In order to understand a given buffer zone’s purpose, it is essential to understand what is significant about the site. The official statement of significance for a site is to some degree subjective, but it is the set of values that the State Party and the World Heritage Committee have agreed upon as the

OUV demonstrated at the site; therefore, it is these values the buffer zone is intended to protect.

Site chronology

A chronological description of activity at the site from the time of its inscription, examining relevant changes in legal status, buffer zones, issues, and major conservation activity was outlined for each case.

Inscribed site and setting boundaries and characteristics

An explanation of the characteristics of the site and its setting, whether a buffer zone exists or not, as well as the basis for delineating the boundaries of each was described for each site.

Legal protection of the site and surroundings

The legal protections for the inscribed site may differ from those of the buffer zone, so it was important to identify what those protections are to look for patterns across sites, both in terms of buffer zone designation and problems that have arisen post-inscription. Areas with further relevant legal restrictions outside the site boundaries or buffer zones were also examined.

Management plan and monitoring activity

Management plans are another protective tool for inscribed sites, and may be

related to perceived need or lack thereof for a buffer zone, as well as whether or not

problems arise at the site. While the focus of this research is not on the specifics of

management plans, it was important to determine whether or not a management plan

existed, and whether there was any indication as to its efficacy. Some sites have

specific plans for monitoring their status. Like management plans, monitoring

mechanisms may play a role in whether or not there is a perceived need for a buffer

zone.

Issues and actions taken

It was important to examine any reported issues at inscribed sites as well as the

reaction of the State Party to the problem, particularly as they relate to buffer zones or

lack thereof. While it is possible not all issues arising in or near a site have been or will

be reported, those issues that are reported can shed important light on buffer zone

practice.

Data Collection: Content Analysis, Document Validity and Availability, Site Visits

This research has employed three complementary approaches in gathering data

on the French World Heritage sites and their buffer zones. These approaches include

content analysis of various documents relating to the French sites and to World

Heritage, in general; statutory analysis of French legal documents pertaining to urban planning and heritage conservation; and personal site visits to several of the French

World Heritage sites. The information gathered was supplemented by knowledge of the

World Heritage List nomination and site evaluation process learned while working at the

ICOMOS Secretariat’s World Heritage Centre in Paris, France. The ICOMOS World

Heritage Centre coordinates the ICOMOS evaluation of nominations to the World

Heritage site.

Content Analysis

The primary set of documents for data collection is the file for each of the French

World Heritage sites. These files are primarily comprised of the original nomination file, but also include the ICOMOS expert evaluation report prepared at the time of nomination. The files may also contain further communication from ICOMOS, the

UNESCO World Heritage Centre, experts involved in evaluating or monitoring the site, and the French Ministry of Culture or other French agencies involved in managing and monitoring the site. The amount of supplementary information in each file depends on whether there were problems during the nomination process, for example, missing

documents or components, or problems at the site after its inscription, for example,

issues with inappropriate development or site use.

The original nomination files loosely follow the format required by the UNESCO

World Heritage Committee in terms of components – a description of the site,

justification for inscription, a description of the current state of conservation and threats

to the site, and discussion of protective measures that apply to the site. Beyond this

basic template, there is little standardization from one nomination file to the next, due

both to changing requirements over time and the fact that local agencies are heavily involved in the preparation of the nomination files, rather than the nomination being the sole responsibility of a central agency. Early nominations tended to be brief, sometimes only a few pages long, with very basic descriptions of each site’s components. As the

Operational Guidelines became more specific as to nomination requirements, the amount of information included in these files increased dramatically. This means that there is a great deal more information available, on average, for sites that were nominated more recently.

Although there is little standardization from one file to the next, the trend toward inclusion of more information also means that there is, in nearly all cases, more information available for those French sites that have buffer zones, because these sites tend to be the ones that were nominated more recently. Pertinent information in the files includes maps of the site and buffer zone boundaries (where applicable) and detailed descriptions of the characteristics of the site, particularly the criteria for which it was inscribed and its OUV, which is what the buffer zone is primarily intended to protect.

The nomination file also includes the relevant legislation that protects the site, and in some cases the legislation that applies to the buffer zone.

The World Heritage Committee has stipulated that States Parties should describe the strategy for determining the boundary of buffer zones and submit this strategy with the nomination file (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a); unfortunately, most

States Parties, including France, consider a map designating the boundaries of the buffer zone to be sufficient in this regard, a practice that does not seem to have been challenged by the World Heritage Committee when inscribing sites.

The ICOMOS expert evaluations of the site are also part of the main site file.

These evaluations often include information taken directly from the nomination file, especially descriptions of the history and characteristics of the site. More important for the current analysis are the expert opinions on the Outstanding Universal Value of the site and the adequacy and appropriateness of any proposed buffer zone. These comments serve as an outside opinion, as they are non-binding to the World Heritage

Committee, which may choose to agree or disagree with the ICOMOS report.

The site files also include communications, as mentioned above, particularly when there has been some manner of problem at the site. These documents are usually in the form of letters and emails, and sometimes provide additional information about activities within buffer zones and how these relate to the protection of the site.

Two other important sets of documents are the 2005 and 2014 periodic reports

for Europe and the Atlas of French Sites Inscribed on the World Heritage List, which

was submitted to the UNESCO World Heritage Centre at the same time as the French

contribution for the 2005 periodic report. The periodic report is a cyclical reporting tool.

The World Heritage Committee requires States Parties to submit a periodic report every

six years; the cycle is based on the region of the world the State Party is in, with a

different region reporting each year (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a). The

2005 periodic report includes a brief write-up on each French site inscribed prior to

1998, while the 2014 Period Report includes statements on all inscribed French sites,

regardless of inscription date. The periodic report write-ups contain a statement about

the site’s buffer zone or lack there-of, and whether the State Party thinks a buffer zone

should be added for further protection of the site. The Atlas of French Sites Inscribed on

the World Heritage List is a book of maps of all but one of the French World Heritage sites inscribed prior to January 2005 (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and

Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). It includes maps of zones to which different French heritage conservation and urban planning laws apply, as well as the boundaries of the World Heritage site and either its existing buffer zone or its proposed buffer zone, as applicable. These documents have been useful in identifying the exact boundaries of the buffer zones, as well as the French interpretation on which sites are most in need of the additional protection offered by a buffer zone.

The World Heritage Committee Session proceedings of the Committee’s annual meetings also include discussion of specific World Heritage sites. These documents are useful in confirming the final decision of the Committee regarding approval of buffer zones, particularly in the case of those added after the World Heritage site had already been inscribed. As far as data on the buffer zones or sites themselves, the Session proceedings function as a tool for confirmation of status of decisions made by the World

Heritage Committee, as well as information about discussions of issues arising at inscribed sites.

Finally, there are state of conservation reports and expert monitoring mission reports for some sites. The state of conservation reports may be statements from the

World Heritage Committee after a State Party has provided information about an issue, or they may be more detailed reports proved by the State Party. State of conservation reports typically deal with one or two issues at a World Heritage site. Expert monitoring mission reports, when available to the public, are compiled by the representatives of the

World Heritage Centre and the appropriate Advisory Body after a site visit related to a

specific threat identified at an inscribed site. State of conservation reports from the State

Party and expert monitoring mission reports tend to be extremely detailed, including information about preparing the report, the history of the threat, and all actions being taken to mitigate it. The state of conservation reports from the World Heritage

Committee tend to be summaries of threats and actions taken.

Document Validity

The nomination files, periodic reports, and Atlas of French Sites Inscribed on the

World Heritage List are all prepared by relevant agencies on behalf of the State of

France. This introduces the possibility for misrepresentation, although in the case of the

French sites this seems unlikely to pose a significant problem for the research at hand.

The characteristics and values identified by France as being of significance are those the French site administrators will be striving to protect. As the buffer zones are intended to protect these characteristics, there is no need for “objective” measures of significance, as, indeed, there can be no such measure in an absolute sense. While there are certainly other sources of information about the history and features of World

Heritage sites, the nomination files and subsequent documentation speak directly to what the State Party, the Advisory Bodies, and UNESCO deem to be values relevant to the significance of the site.

The criteria of significance selected and described by the State Party must be examined by the ICOMOS expert and then further approved by the UNESCO World

Heritage Committee. While no system is perfect, it seems unlikely that extremely important characteristics would be left out of the nomination without being noticed by either the ICOMOS expert or the Committee, nor that insignificant characteristics would

be included as part of the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value or criteria for which the site was inscribed.

The French Ministry of Culture has, on several occasions, submitted corrections to the World Heritage Committee when it has realized that there were errors in maps or descriptions of boundaries or legislation that applies to a given zone. While this highlights the fact that there are sometimes errors in the original nomination files, it also indicates that France makes an effort to identify and correct any such errors.

The area most likely to suffer from misrepresentation is the identification of

threats to the site. States Parties may not always recognize the issues facing a site they

are nominating, or may seek to downplay the level of threat in order to improve the

chance of securing a nomination. It is possible that there are French nominations that

include similar misinterpretations or misrepresentations, although in most cases, the

experts asked to analyze the nomination will note any threats that are not included or

are not fully described. Likewise, with state of conservation reports submitted by the

State Party, it is possible that a threat may be downplayed, but their extensive detail

and the level of scrutiny by representatives of Advisory Bodies, the World Heritage

Centre, and the World Heritage Committee during an active threat to the site, as well as

the World Heritage Committee’s response to these reports, suggest these documents

are accurate and complete, on the whole.

The World Heritage Committee Session minutes are summaries of the transcripts

of the annual meetings. A draft is prepared by the World Heritage Centre, reviewed, and

then published online as a record of everything that was discussed and decided at the

meeting. As a third party, there is no way to verify that these summaries are accurate,

but as the bulk of the session minutes are the actions taken by the WHC, it seems unlikely these would be misrepresented or that mistakes would go unnoticed by either the participants or the States Parties impacted by the decisions.

The Advisory Body evaluations and reactive monitoring mission reports are intended to be professional assessments offering an expert opinion to aid the WHC in its decisions. As such, these documents are opinions, but also act as a means of corroborating or refuting information in the nomination files prepared by the State Party.

These documents may also offer insight into an outsider’s view on the State Party’s assessment of OUV.

Determining and Describing Site Values and OUV

Given the importance of a site’s OUV to this research, particular attention to the documents detailing information about OUV was necessary. The official declaration of

OUV for any inscribed World Heritage site is available on the UNESCO World Heritage website (whc.unesco.org) entry for the site. Other discussions of the site’s values can be found in the original nomination document, the ICOMOS evaluation of the original nomination, and the periodic reports. In most cases, the information provided by France in its periodic reports matches or is very similar to the original nomination material. Any official declaration of OUV must be approved by the World Heritage Committee, as must any alteration to an existing declaration.

In 2012, prior to the beginning of the second cycle of periodic reporting in Europe and North America, the World Heritage Committee requested a worldwide retrospective project to update declarations of OUV, especially given that many early sites have only brief descriptions. According to the 2014 periodic report, among the selected case studies, only the Causses and the Cévennes site has an up-to-date declaration of OUV

on the UNESCO World Heritage website. France indicated in the periodic report that a declaration of OUV for each of the other case studies had been submitted to the World

Heritage Committee, but was awaiting approval. Among these cases, Versailles and

Mont-Saint-Michel have only brief descriptions, while Vézère Valley, Lyon, and Provins all have detailed descriptions; there is no indication as to when any of these declarations was approved.

A site’s online entry may also include an explanation of how each of the inscription criteria apply to the site. Other discussions of inscription criteria may be found in the original nomination document, the ICOMOS evaluation of the original nomination, or the periodic reports, although in some instances, particularly for sites inscribed early on, there is no discussion of specific criteria beyond listing which criteria

apply. In many cases, the ICOMOS explanation of inscription criteria is adopted by the

World Heritage Committee, and thus often matches the website entry’s explanation.

Descriptions of the individual inscription criteria as they apply to each case study

are available on the official UNESCO entry for Lyon, Provins, and the Causses and

Cévènnes. However, the descriptions of criteria in the 2014 periodic report for Lyon and

Provins do not match those on the UNESCO World Heritage website; it is possible

France hopes to update the description along with the declaration of OUV. The

individual inscription criteria are not described on the UNESCO World Heritage website

entries for Versailles, Mont-Saint-Michel, or Vézère Valley, although they are described in the ICOMOS evaluation of the original nomination.

All of the above-mentioned documents will be used in determining the OUV for

each case study. Priority will be given to the official declaration of OUV and description

of criteria on the UNESCO World Heritage website, as available. This will be augmented and compared with information from the ICOMOS evaluation of the original nomination, the 2014 periodic report, and the original nomination file.

Document Availability

Many of the nomination files and ICOMOS expert evaluations are available on

UNESCO’s World Heritage website (whc.unesco.org). Some sites inscribed in the early

years of the World Heritage List have not been made available on the website, nor are

any sites inscribed in the most recently passed year; most files on these sites are

available to the public at the ICOMOS Documentation Centre in Paris, France. The

2005 and 2014 periodic reports for Europe are likewise available on the UNESCO

World Heritage website. The Atlas of French Sites Inscribed on the World Heritage List

is available at the ICOMOS Documentation Centre, as is any auxiliary correspondence

that was not part of the original nomination, as discussed above.

Site Visits

This research has involved personal site visits to eight French World Heritage

sites. Two of these visits were made shortly prior to the determination to specifically

examine buffer zones, although pertinent photographic data was collected in each case

as being relevant to heritage conservation and World Heritage, in general. The sites

visited were Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay; Historic Fortified City of Carcassonne;

Paris, Banks of the Seine; Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley;

Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs; Historic Site of Lyons; Palace and Park of

Fontainebleau; and Palace and Park of Versailles. Mont-Saint-Michel and Its Bay is

inscribed as its own World Heritage site, but is also part of the cultural route inscribed

as a serial site, Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France. The sites visited also

represent examples of nearly all the categories of the typological framework that

ICOMOS and the WHC use to classify and compare World Heritage sites and nominations. The only category of site not represented by one of the sites visited is the

“modern world” category; only one site currently inscribed in France falls into this category, namely Le Havre, the city reconstructed after World War II. As far as presence of buffer zones, Versailles and Mont-Saint-Michel are both sites that have had buffer zones retroactively added after inscription on the List; while Fontainebleau, Paris, and the Caves of the Vézère Valley have no buffer zones; Provins, Lyon, and

Carcassonne were inscribed with buffer zones, thus providing a small sample of each status.

For sites with buffer zones, the boundary conditions between the inscribed site and its buffer zone were examined in each case and, where possible, between the buffer zone and areas outside the buffer zone. This allowed the comparison of the characteristics of the inscribed site with those of the buffer zone, as applicable. For sites without buffer zones, the boundary between the site and its surroundings, as well as characteristics of each, were examined. The maps in the Atlas of French Sites Inscribed on the World Heritage List were used to identify boundaries and areas within the World

Heritage site, the buffer zone, and outside both, as applicable. These typically cover extremely large areas, so it was not possible to tour any site or buffer zone in its entirety. Where possible, photographs were used to document features of sites, their buffer zones, and areas outside the sites, although photography is not allowed at all sites, particularly within the caves inscribed as part of Prehistoric Sites and Decorated

Caves of the Vézère Valley.

CHAPTER 5 HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND WORLD HERITAGE IN FRANCE: THE BACKGROUND

France has long engaged in the conservation of its heritage, with inventories of historic sites dating to the nineteenth century and strong legal protections dating from the early twentieth century onward. As discussed below, France’s participation in the

World Heritage List and the protections for its inscribed sites are achieved through a combination of regulations that fall within the national heritage code, spatial planning code, and environmental code, portions of which overlap in their impact on specific sites

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014a). These regulations are executed at various levels of French government ranging from national to local, and together form the basis for the legal protections afforded French World Heritage sites as well as the legal options that are available for the implementation of buffer zones.

World Heritage in France

France has been a signatory of the World Heritage Convention since June 27,

1975 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015d). As of March 2015, there are 39 sites inscribed on the World Heritage List that are entirely or partially within France: three natural sites, one mixed site, and 35 cultural sites (UNESCO World Heritage Centre

2015d). Among these sites, three are transnational sites – the mixed site Pyrénées –

Mont Perdu; and the cultural sites Belfries of Belgium and France, and Prehistoric Pile dwellings around the Alps (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015d). France currently has 39 potential sites on its tentative list (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015d).

France has nominated six additional sites that were not inscribed on the World Heritage

List; one of these the World Heritage Committee decided not to inscribe1, one was

deemed incomplete2, one was deferred3 to allow the State Party to add information prior

to evaluation and a decision by the World Heritage Committee, and three were

withdrawn4 by the State Party prior to a decision by the World Heritage Committee

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales

responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014a). All but the site that the

Committee declined to inscribe remain on France’s tentative list (Commission nationale

pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel

et naturel 2014a) and may be nominated again in the future.

French Administrative Units

The government of France is subdivided into four primary levels – federal, region

(Région)5, department (Département), and municipality or commune (Commune).

Regional, departmental and municipal governments are considered local within the

framework of French governance (Thoin 2006). The federal government is represented

by a prefect (préfet) at both the departmental and regional levels; the prefect’s duties include the implementation of federal policy, including spatial planning, and prefects are responsible for contracts signed between regions or departments and the federal government (Thoin 2006), as discussed below.

1 Abbey of St. Nicholas de Tolentin de Brou

2 Les Climats du Vignoble de Bourgogne

3 Centre historique de Rouen

4 Ensemble de grottes à concrétions du Sud de la France, Le Rivage méditerranéen des Pyrénées, and the transnational serial site l’œuvre architecturale et urbaine de Le Corbusier

5 Terms for legal concepts and agencies that are the author’s translation from a document in French are indicated the first time the term occurs in the text.

The Decentralization Act of 1982 began the process of decentralizing French government, so that federal activities formerly coordinated by ministries in Paris were now managed at the departmental or regional level by the prefects (Thoin 2006). This continued in 2004 with further legislation that transferred more powers and responsibilities to local governments (Thoin 2006). Local governments at each level now also have locally elected governing councils and financial autonomy (Thoin 2006).

Municipalities are primarily responsible for local urban planning policy and

building permits, elementary schools, waste infrastructure, local urban transport,

economic services for local businesses, and management of social institutions like

libraries and museums (Thoin 2006). The departments are primarily responsible for

economic development, environmental conservation of departmental waterways and

natural sites, and cultural events (Thoin 2006). The regional councils are primarily

responsible for spatial planning, as discussed below; regional economic development;

and high schools and vocational training (Thoin 2006). In some cases, there are also

intercommunal governing bodies established for cooperation between nearby

municipalities, although these are not considered formal administrative divisions in the

way regions, departments, and municipalities are (Thoin 2006). Any of these levels of

government may be involved in heritage conservation and management of World

Heritage sites or their buffer zones (Thoin 2006).

Spatial planning is carried out on both the federal and local levels of government,

as it covers a broad range of planning activities including urban planning, transportation

planning, economic development, public service provision, educational development,

and communications infrastructure (Thoin 2006). Each administrative level has a

different role to play in this process, which is codified by contractual obligations between the appropriate local entity and the federal government (Thoin 2006). These contracts are most frequently implemented at the regional level, and agree on a set of priorities for the administrative area that encourage sustainable development through infrastructure development, economic projects, harmonious development of the built environment, urban revitalization, and conservation of natural sites (Thoin 2006). A major component of spatial planning is urban planning, which in France seeks to equitably balance development and conservation; established at the regional or departmental level, these plans supersede local urban codes (les plans locaux d’urbanisme – PLUs) at the municipal level in the case of contradiction (Thoin 2006).

One of the federal government’s goals has been to incorporate sustainable principles in the spatial planning process; part of this push has been to recognize the importance of participation by local governments and groups (Thoin 2006). Sustainable development in France focuses on controlling urban sprawl, mitigating negative transportation impacts, environmental conservation, and reducing social and economic inequalities (Thoin 2006). This means that specific spatial planning and sustainable

development programs have been implemented not only at the various administrative

levels, but also in other geographic groupings like urban areas, areas of towns and

countryside (pays), rural areas, as well as mountain and coastal areas (Thoin 2006).

Urban areas are often comprised of multiple municipalities that must work in

tandem to address local issues; policies frequently involve neighborhood revitalization in

economically depressed areas, housing projects, and economic development programs

that encourage not only business growth but local hiring practices (Thoin 2006). Pays

are typically grouped based on both geographic proximity and common economic and cultural ties in an area, and are intended to integrate services between the area’s towns and countryside (Thoin 2006). A council of local representatives is formed to develop a charter that examines the area’s needs and outlines guidelines for meeting them in accordance with local resources and characteristics (Thoin 2006).

Rural areas are divided into three categories, those experiencing development pressure due to their proximity to cities, those with increasing population and economic growth due to such factors as natural and environmental tourism, and vulnerable areas where population is decreasing as local agriculture or industry declines (Thoin 2006).

Each obviously offers a different set of issues, all meant to be addressed at the local

level through the Rural Development Act of 2005, which deals with agricultural

preservation, support for small craft businesses, economic incentives for other

economic growth, and improving housing and communication infrastructure (Thoin

2006). Regional Nature Parks are also part of this system, and require the relevant local

governments to participate with local residents in order to create a sustainable

development plan to promote conservation of both natural and cultural elements of the

park (Thoin 2006). Mountain and coastal areas are handled separately through plans for sustainable cultural and environmental development drawn up by advisory bodies comprised of local stakeholders (Thoin 2006).

French Legislation Related to Heritage Conservation

National Heritage Code

Beyond the general administration of geographic areas within France, there are

laws and programs at both the federal and local levels that more specifically impact

heritage conservation and the management of World Heritage sites and their buffer

zones. The primary laws for the protection of heritage sites in France are the Historic

Monuments Act of 1913 and the Historic Site Law of 1930. They both employ similar categorizations and mechanisms, but apply to slightly different types of heritage resources.

The Historic Monuments Act of 1913 has been amended and altered numerous times since its implementation, but has formed the basis for heritage conservation in

France through today (Longuet and Vincent 2001). This act applies to both immovable and movable objects of any time period (Longuet and Vincent 2001), although for the purposes of this research it is the immovable objects under discussion. In the case of the 1913 act, a series of addenda over time has broadened the definition to include a wide variety of sites including, but not limited to, archaeological sites, buildings, farm sites, parks, factories, and caves with evidence of human activity (Longuet and Vincent

2001). Sites may be listed due to historic, aesthetic, technical, scientific, or ethnological significance (Longuet and Vincent 2001); the early intent of the law was to protect historically and artistically significant sites from demolition, inappropriate alteration, and neglect, and actually enabled the government to expropriate private property in danger by listing it as classified under the law (Fontaine 1980).

Sites listed under the Historic Monuments Act of 1913 are described as either classified (monument historique classé) or registered (monument historique inscrit)

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005), with slightly different rules governing each category.

Both public and private property may be listed as either type of site (Fontaine 1980).

The procedure for listing is nearly identical for each, a process involving the completion

of a site study by the regional conservator of French buildings (Conservateur régional des Bâtiments de France) and the crafting of a protective and regulatory ordinance by the Ministry of Culture; a site may be registered without owner consent, but a site may only be classified if the owner consents or the federal Council of State (Conseil d’État) intervenes to supersede the owner (Fontaine 1980). The effects of being a classified or a registered heritage site are slightly different. A classified heritage site may not be altered without approval of the Ministry of Culture and Communication (Ministère de la culture et de la communication), and all work must be carried out by the official area architect6, while a registered heritage site may be altered by any architect of the owner’s

choice so long as the Ministry of Culture and Communication has been informed of the

action (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). There is no restriction on

selling or transferring either type of property, although the owner must inform the

Ministry of Culture and Communication about sale or transfer of a classified heritage

site (Fontaine 1980). There are also financial incentives available to both types of sites

in the form of subsidy for up to 50% of the work at a classified heritage site and a tax

deduction on the rest, or a subsidy for up to 10% of the work at a registered heritage

site (Fontaine 1980). Finally, legal easements that may negatively impact a classified

heritage site are superseded by the protection this act imparts (Fontaine 1980).

The Historic Monuments Act of 1913 was amended in 1943 to create protection

for the immediate surroundings of both classified and registered heritage sites; this

surrounding zone (abords du monument historique) includes everything within a radius

6 The official area architect is an architect assigned to the local architecture and heritage department (Service Départemental de l'Architecture et du Patrimoine – SDAP) for the area with jurisdiction over the site in question (Longuet and Vincent 2001).

of 500 meters of the site, although the Council of State may extend the zone in exceptional cases (Fontaine 1980). Any work within this zone that might visually impact the site or its setting must be approved by the Ministry of Culture and Communication.

The Heritage Sites Act of 1930 broadened the scope of heritage sites protected

under French law so that natural sites, landscapes and urban areas of artistic, historic,

scientific, or picturesque significance could be protected (Longuet and Vincent 2001;

Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). Like sites protected under the

1913 law, heritage sites can be listed as either classified (site classé) or registered (site

inscrit). Modifications to classified heritage sites require approval from the Minister of

Sites (ministre des Sites) within the Ministry of Ecology (Ministère de l’écologie), which

manages issues of sustainable development, while registered heritage sites may be

altered so long as the official area architect is consulted in the process (Ministère de la

culture et de la communication 2000). A 1961 amendment to this act allows for the

creation of a protective zone around listed sites so long as there is public input into its

designation (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000); this zone typically requires review of building permits within its boundaries (Fontaine 1980).

Spatial Planning Code

The early iterations of the French heritage acts focused mainly on monuments

and buildings, and although their scope has been broadened considerably by

subsequent amendments, it was the Malraux Law of 1962 that was primarily

responsible for the protection and management of urban areas, towns, and collections

of buildings as heritage resources (Longuet and Vincent 2001). This law was a reaction

to urban renewal projects, and allows the creation of the safeguarded sectors (secteurs

sauvgardés) (Longuet and Vincent 2001). Safeguarded sectors are created by a joint

team of local authorities, representatives of the Ministry of Ecology and the Ministry of

Culture and Communication, and an architect chosen by the rest of the team; once the boundaries and plan for specific protective measures are drawn up, it is submitted to the public for comment before final approval and implementation (Fontaine 1980). Work that

would modify the safeguarded sector must be authorized by the official area architect,

and the plan itself supersedes any prior town plans or land development plans

(Fontaine 1980).

A 1984 decree authorized the creation of ZPPAUPs (Zone de Protection du

Patrimoine Architectural, Urbain et Paysager) – architectural, urban, and landscape

heritage protection zones (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

ZPPAUPs offer protection for cultural and natural heritage within quarters and districts

through a combination of heritage policy, urban planning policy, and additional

limitations on demolition and alterations within the zone; all relevant restrictions for

classified historic monuments and sites remain in place (Ministère de la culture et de la

communication 2007). ZPPAUPs are created with public input by municipal ordinance,

and integrated with the local urban code or land development code, as appropriate;

regulations of the ZPPAUP take precedence over either in the case of contradiction

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2007). Like safeguarded sectors and

areas surrounding historic monuments, any modification to these zones requires the

approval of the official area architect (Longuet and Vincent 2001). Beginning in 2015,

ZPPAUPs will be replaced by a similar spatial planning tool, known as AVAPs (aire de

valorisation de l’architecture et du patrimoine) – improvement areas for architecture and

heritage (Berthelot 2013).

As of 2000, PLUs (plans locaux d’urbanisme) – local urban codes – began to replace land development plans (plans d’occupation des sols – POS) as local planning regulation tools (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2007). PLUs are implemented by municipalities in cooperation with the sustainability branch of the

Ministry of Ecology and are intended to protect urban districts as well as prevent the urbanization of natural or agricultural areas; this is achieved through land use regulations, designation of areas for new construction, guidelines on the external appearance of construction and its relation to its surroundings, and designation of natural or built areas for specific protection (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2007).

There are two acts designed to protect coastal and mountain areas in France, the Mountain Act of 1985 and the Coastal Act of 1986 (Thoin 2006); both of these laws address spatial planning concerns as well as environmental conservation issues

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014a). The Mountain Act is intended to protect natural resources while encouraging both agricultural activity and sustainable tourism through the coordination of the efforts of prefects in France’s mountainous areas (Thoin 2006). On average, coastal areas in France have a higher population density than inland areas, so the Coastal Act is a tool intended to coordinate local government activity and the private sector in sustainable management and economic development without harm to environmental resources (Thoin 2006). The French government considers these acts to be overlapping spatial planning and environmental conservation tools, having the potential to be used in protecting World Heritage sites

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014a).

Environmental Code

The French national park system consists of nine parks devoted to the protection of natural areas (Sommier and Berger 2015); two of these parks are part of cultural

landscapes inscribed on the World Heritage List, the Causses and Cévennes

agropastoral cultural landscape, and the Pyrénées-Mont Perdu cultural landscape

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015r). The parks are regulated by the federal

government agency National Parks of France (Parcs nationaux de France) under the

Ministry of Ecology, but are managed in consultation with local authorities and residents

(Sommier and Berger 2015). Parks are subject to national regulations restricting human activity within the core zone, although there are additional regulations for individual sites related to their specific natural features (Sommier and Berger 2015). The Landscape

Law of 1993 is intended to complement the Coastal and Mountain Acts in allowing the protection of other types of landscapes within the National Park system (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014a).

France’s Regional Nature Parks (Parcs naturels régionaux – PNR) encompass

both natural and cultural resources, including settlements (Thoin 2006). The boundaries

of a Regional Nature Park correspond to the outermost boundaries of all the communes

participating in the charter that establishes the park and its goals in terms of sustainable

development and protection of environmental and cultural resources (Thoin 2006).

CHAPTER 6 SELECTION OF FRENCH WORLD HERITAGE SITES

This chapter explains the frameworks used by ICOMOS and the World Heritage

Committee to evaluate nominations to the World Heritage List. The typological framework is used to assist in selecting the specific French World Heritage sites that serve as the case studies in this research. This ensures that a variety of site types with different needs is met.

Frameworks for Categorizing World Heritage Sites

As part of the push to redress the imbalance of sites on the World Heritage List,

both in terms of better global representation and types of sites, ICOMOS published the

document Filling the Gaps – an Action Plan for the Future in 2005. This document

detailed the expert analysis of the composition of the World Heritage List and created

several frameworks for dividing sites into categories, including a chronological

framework, a thematic framework, and a typological framework. The chronological

framework divides the world into regions and eras, assigning each World Heritage site

to its historical period and cultural group – for instance, Mesa Verde in the US is

categorized as a North American site related to early civilizations, specifically

Anasazi/Mogollon/Hohokarn/Pueblo Culture village farmers from 300 BC to 1400 AD

(Jukko, et al. 2005). The thematic framework divides cultural World Heritage sites into

seven themes: expressions of society, for example, oral traditions or music; cultural and

political associations, for instance, significant personalities or memorials; developing

knowledge, for example, human health or law; creative responses and continuity, for

example, religious architecture or cave dwellings; spiritual responses, for instance,

Hinduism or Judaism; utilizing natural resources, for instance, irrigation systems or

mining; movement of peoples, for example, colonization or cultural routes; and developing technologies, for example, writing or urban transportation systems (Jukko, et al. 2005). The typological framework divides sites into 14 types based on the primary use or nature of the site in question, for instance, rock-art sites or cultural landscapes

(Jukko, et al. 2005).

Both the chronological and typological frameworks are used by ICOMOS in creating a comparative analysis for sites nominated to the World Heritage List. The chronological framework allows the identification of other closely related sites on the

World Heritage List or on the tentative list of the State Party submitting the nomination – for example, in examining whether a specific cultural group and era is already well- represented on the List. This evaluation relates specifically to the desire to ensure a representative World Heritage List with regard to world regions, cultures, and historical eras.

The typological framework is broader in scope, and may be used to compare sites that are otherwise unrelated, culturally or temporally speaking, or even to sites that are geographically distant. While both frameworks are in use during the nomination evaluation process, the typological framework is more useful in an examination of site treatment in terms of protection – for example, two archaeological sites from different eras and world regions are likely to have far more in common in terms of site issues and

needs than are a cultural route and a palace from the same era and region. For this

reason, it was useful to select case studies to represent the categories of the typological

framework as well as possible, while the chronological framework is less important for

the purposes of this study.

The 14 categories in the typological framework (Appendix C) can be represented by a smaller number of French World Heritage sites, sites that have significant defining features related to each of the types. Each site selected represents at least one type, although most represent more than one type and may also have one or more secondary features that relate to a type, as well. The six selected sites are briefly described below, with emphasis on their relationship to the typological framework; more detailed descriptions of each case study follow in the next section.

Typological Framework and French Sites Selected

Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley

This is a serial site that includes rock art in the form of cave paintings and carvings, artifacts, ancient human and hominid remains, and archaeological sites

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015j). This site represents type 1, archaeological heritage; type 2, rock-art sites; and type 3, fossil hominid sites.

Mont-Saint-Michel and Its Bay

This site was a remote abbey that was also a pilgrimage destination associated with Christianity, specifically the archangel Michael (UNESCO World Heritage Centre

2015g). This site and its building complex represent type 4, historic buildings and ensembles. The site also represents type 7, religious properties, and type 13, symbolic properties and memorials, for its relation to the cult of the archangel.

Mont-Saint-Michel is inscribed as a standalone site on the World Heritage List, but it is also inscribed as part of the serial site Routes of Santiago de Compostela in

France, a pilgrimage route that is considered a cultural route (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998a). For this reason, it is the only representative of type 11, cultural routes, included among the case studies. Documentation on the full site Routes

of Santiago de Compostela is incomplete, particularly regarding the site boundaries, and thus cannot be used as a case study on its own. Instead, Mont-Saint-Michel is examined as a standalone site in terms of its documentation, which includes information about areas related to the site’s history along the pilgrimage route, several of which are located within the boundary of the site or within its buffer zone.

Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs

This site is a small fortified settlement from the medieval period that is still inhabited today (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015k). Most of the town is part of the

World Heritage site, although there is a modern area that is within the site’s buffer zone

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). This site represents type 5, urban and rural settlements/historic towns and villages. Due to its extensive ramparts, an important feature of the site, Provins also represents type 9, military properties, which includes sites such as castles, forts, and town defenses.

Historic Site of Lyons

This site is the historic center of the city Lyon (UNESCO World Heritage Centre

2015e). Part of the more modern portion of the city comprises the site’s buffer zone, although much of the city is in neither the inscribed site nor the buffer zone (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). Like Provins, this site represents type 5, urban and rural settlements/historic towns and villages, although with features and issues different enough to provide a contrast between a small town like Provins and a large urban area.

The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape

This site is a living agricultural landscape that includes villages, vernacular

architecture, pasture, agricultural areas, and traditional industrial practices (UNESCO

World Heritage Centre 2015c). It represents type 6, vernacular architecture, although it

is likely that this type of site will share many features and issues with other architectural

types, for example, historic buildings and ensembles or urban and rural settlements. It also represents type 8, agricultural, industrial, and technological properties; this type includes traditional industrial practices, such as historical mining or water management systems. Finally, this site represents type 10, cultural landscapes, parks and gardens.

Among the French sites selected as case studies, it is the only one not personally

visited. However, the inclusion of a living cultural landscape was an important

consideration in making this selection, and the State Party submitted an extensive file

documenting the site when it was inscribed in 2011.

The Palace and Park of Versailles

This site includes the palace complexes at Versailles, as well as their extensive

grounds and gardens (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015h). It represents type 10,

cultural landscapes, parks, and gardens, contrasting with the Causses and Cévennes in

that it is a planned park landscape rather than an organically developing landscape. It

also represents type 4, historic buildings and ensembles.

Unrepresented Types

There are two types of sites that are unrepresented by the selected case studies.

The first is type 12, burial monuments and sites; it seems reasonable that the issues

faced at this type of site will be similar to either type 1, archaeological heritage; type 4,

historic buildings and ensembles; or type 7, religious properties. France does not have

any sites that are primarily burial monuments or sites, although there are certainly burials that comprise features within archaeological sites, settlements, and cultural landscapes.

The second is type 14, modern heritage, which encompasses architectural sites dating from the late nineteenth century on. Given that these sites are differentiated from others due to the time period in which they were constructed, it seems reasonable that the issues faced at these sites will be similar to those at type 4, historic buildings and ensembles, and type 5, urban and rural settlements/historic towns and villages, depending on the scale of the site in question. France currently has only one site that fits within type 14, Le Havre, a city rebuilt after sustaining extensive damage during

World War II.

CHAPTER 7 CASE STUDY I: MONT-SAINT-MICHEL AND ITS BAY

Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay: General Site Description

The property Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (Figure 7-1) was inscribed on the

World Heritage List in 1979 (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015g) with no buffer zone. France proposed the addition of a buffer zone in 2007, which was approved by the World Heritage Committee the same year (UNESCO World Heritage Committee

2007). The World Heritage site covers 6,560 ha and its buffer zone covers 57,510 ha

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015g). This site represents several typologies, including historic buildings and ensembles, religious properties, and symbolic properties and memorials. As part of the inscribed World Heritage site Routes of Santiago de

Compostela in France, Mont-Saint-Michel (also known as the Mont) also represents the cultural routes typology; the site’s function as a pilgrimage destination in the Middle

Ages is an important aspect of both inscriptions.

Mont-Saint-Michel is an islet off the northwest coast of France, surmounted by a medieval Benedictine abbey and its surrounding monastic structures, as well as the small village below the monastery on the southeastern slope of the islet (UNESCO

World Heritage Centre 2015g). At the time of its inscription, Mont-Saint-Michel was connected to the mainland by a nineteenth century earthen causeway (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b), which is in the process of being replaced by a bridge in order to restore the tidal flow around the islet (État de conservation 2014).

Both the islets of Mont-Saint-Michel and Tombelaine are located within the inner Bay of

Mont-Saint-Michel, which is fed by the Sélune and Sée Rivers from the east and the

Couesnon River from the south (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and

Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2011a). The terrain around Mont-

Saint-Michel gradually rises from the Bay, creating a relatively flat landscape; topographical high points in the region known as montjoies traditionally offered the first view of the Mont to traveling pilgrims, often from great distances (Castel-Branco and

Sorosh-Wali 2011).

The islet of Mont-Saint-Michel reaches a height of 260 feet above the tidal plain, while the spire constructed atop the abbey at the islet’s summit reaches a height of 540 feet above the tidal plain (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b). The principal structures of Mont-Saint-Michel include a tenth century church, the eleventh to eighteenth century abbey, the thirteenth century monastery, and the village on the slope of the Mont, while the north slope of the islet is lightly wooded (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b). The oldest extant structure on the Mont is Notre-Dame- sous-Terre, the early Romanesque church built at the summit (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b). Beginning in 1023, an abbey was constructed atop the original church, although due to various alterations after fire and other damage, today the only remaining portion of the original abbey is the south side, comprised of the crypt of Aquilon and the infirmary (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b). The current choir was rebuilt in the flamboyant Gothic style in 1446, while the current front façade of the abbey was constructed in 1776 (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b). The monastic buildings, known as the Merveille (marvel), were constructed below the abbey in the early thirteenth century in the Gothic style (ICOMOS

1979a), and include a cloister, chaplaincy, dormitory, refectory, larder, and knights’ hall

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b). The village on the slope below

the monastic buildings was originally home primarily to fishermen, but also to services related to pilgrimage, such as inns and shops (Froidevaux 1978). The town and its small year-round population currently support a heavy summer tourist influx (Figure 7-1).

Outstanding Universal Value

The remote islet of Mont-Saint-Michel was a medieval monastery and pilgrimage

site linked to the Christian cult of the archangel Michael (UNESCO World Heritage

Centre 2015g). The dangerous quicksand of the surrounding tidal flats during low tide,

as well as the swift return of the sea and strong currents during high tide reinforced the

islet’s isolation (État de conservation 2014). The Gothic architecture presents a unique

aesthetic feat, both for its union with the islet and its role as a focal point within an

otherwise flat landscape (État de conservation 2014). The abbey at Mont-Saint-Michel

also exerted intellectual influence during the Middle Ages (État de conservation 2014).

Although present at the time of inscription, the nineteenth century causeway

negatively impacted the site’s OUV visually (Figure 7-1), in terms of its isolation, and by

increasing sedimentation in the Bay, while other nineteenth century earthwork

construction likewise increased siltation. Within the past decade, these earthworks have

been altered or removed, restoring the tides around the Mont and reducing the negative

impact on the site, both visually and in terms of the danger of the Mont becoming

landlocked (État de conservation 2014).

Inscription Criteria

The original nomination of the site proposed inscription on the basis of three

cultural criteria: (i), (iii), and (vi), as well as on the basis of natural features (Ministère de

la culture et de la communication 1979b). ICOMOS recommended inscription under the

three cultural criteria (ICOMOS 1979a), and the World Heritage Committee inscribed

the site on the basis of these three cultural criteria, discounting the State Party’s recommendation that the site also be inscribed on the basis of natural features

(UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1979). No explanation of the three criteria are included in the brief description comprising the current declaration of OUV on the

UNESCO World Heritage website, while the description of the criteria in both the 2005 and 2014 periodic reports is taken verbatim from the original ICOMOS evaluation of the nomination (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014c; Ministry of Culture and

Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005a). At the time of inscription, ICOMOS suggested the following justification for inscription criteria:

• (i) Mont-Saint-Michel is a “unique aesthetic realization” due to its “union of the natural site and the architecture.”

• (iii) The site is important due to the ensemble of the abbey and village on the islet, and particularly for “its unforgettable silhouette.”

• (vi) “Mont Saint-Michel is one of the most important sites of medieval Christian civilization.” (ICOMOS 1979a:3)

The first retrospective declaration of OUV submitted by France proposed two alterations to the wording of the criteria: the addition of a statement that the Mont is an

“exceptional testament to medieval civilization” to criterion (iii) and a complete rewording of criterion (vi) to describe the site’s inaccessible nature, its relationship to religious pilgrimage, the intellectual influence of the abbey, and that the site “is one of the centers of Christian civilization of the Middle Ages in its most characteristic aspects.” (Castel-

Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011:10) However, the most recent version submitted for

approval in 2013 and currently awaiting approval left the wording unchanged from that

proposed by ICOMOS in 1979 (État de conservation 2014). Mont-Saint-Michel is also a

component of the inscribed World Heritage site The Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France, which was inscribed on the World Heritage List for criteria (ii), (iv), and (vi) relating respectively to the route’s role in medieval cultural exchange; the specialized building forms developed in France to accommodate pilgrims, none of which appear at

Mont-Saint-Michel; and the route’s relationship to medieval Christianity (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998a; UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015m).

Authenticity and Integrity

The site functioned as a prison from the late 1700s through 1863, and since then has had only a nominal monastic presence, while the flow of pilgrims has largely been replaced by tourists (État de conservation 2014). The village on the slopes of the islet was originally a fishing village that provided accommodations for pilgrims in the form of inns and shops (Froidevaux 1978), and now is primarily focused on the needs of tourists. In spite of this, both village and monastery have retained many of their medieval structures, although the construction of the emblematic spire in the nineteenth century is considered to be a significant late addition to the overall aesthetic ensemble

(État de conservation 2014). The cloister garden is currently being restored on the basis of a “neo-medieval” plan drawn up in 1965, when research demonstrated that documentation at the abbey was insufficient to determine the organization of the garden or specific plants cultivated there during the Middle Ages (État de conservation 2014).

Part of the Bay is included within the World Heritage site, the immediate tidal flat setting of Mont-Saint-Michel. However, the montjoies from which the Mont was first viewed by pilgrims are neither within the World Heritage site nor its buffer zone (État de conservation 2014). The traditional economic activities dominant in the area are still practiced today – livestock breeding on the polders and salt meadows, as well as fishing

and harvesting shellfish in the Bay (État de conservation 2014), although these take place primarily within the buffer zone, rather than within the boundary of the World

Heritage site. Research at the Moidrey windmill suggests that it was associated with the abbey, while recent archaeological discoveries of scallop shells, the symbol of St.

James and pilgrims to his tomb, link the site more directly with the pilgrimage route of

Santiago de Compostela (État de conservation 2014).

Site Chronology: Basic History, Conservation Efforts, and World Heritage Activity

• 708: According to legend, the bishop of Avranches, also known as St. Aubert, had a vision of the archangel St. Michael commanding him to construct “a sanctuary in his honour on Mont-Tombe,” which would come to be known as Mont-Saint-Michel (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b:6).

• 966: Monastary founded on Mont-Saint-Michel by Benedictine monks; the church Notre-Dame-sous-Terre was built during this period in the Romanesque style (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1023: Construction of portions of the abbey began at this time (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1103: Reconstruction of the north side of the abbey after a collapse (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1204: Mont-Saint-Michel functioned as a citadel during the war to return Normandy to French rule. Most of the monastic buildings were burned during the war; the only surviving portions were a crypt, the infirmary, and the dormitory (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1210: Funding from the French king, Philip Augustus, allowed the construction of the Merveille (the “Marvel”) as living quarters for the monks (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• Fourteenth century: Ongoing reinforcement of the Mont’s ramparts and towers, as it was used as a citadel throughout the Hundred Years’ War (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1346: Tombelaine, the other islet in the inner Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, was occupied by English forces (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1421: Abbey choir collapses (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1426 – 1450: 119 knights barricaded themselves in the Mont during the latter part of the Hundred Years’ War, until the English were driven from Normandy (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1446: Rebuilding of the collapsed choir in the Gothic style (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1662: Monks from the St. Maur congregation take possession of the site (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1776: Current façade replaced the three bays on the west of the abbey after fire damage (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• Eighteenth century: The Exiles, who were political prisoners, were imprisoned at the Mont (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1811: Mont-Saint-Michel officially became a penitentiary controlled by the Prisons Administration, housing 500 prisoners (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1830 and 1838: Political prisoners held at the Mont following the revolutions of those years (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1856: Roche-Torin dike constructed blocking the Sélune and Sée Rivers in order to increase available agricultural land near Mont-Saint-Michel (Cans 1983).

• 1863: Napoleon III decreed the Mont was no longer to be used as a prison, following a successful campaign by writers such as Victor Hugo to end the practice of imprisonment there (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1872 – 1890: Restoration work on Mont-Saint-Michel undertaken by Edouard Corroyer and then by Victor Petitgrand (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1874: Mont-Saint-Michel listed as a historic monument (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1877: Beginning of construction of the causeway linking the Mont to the mainland, part of a project to encourage the build-up of sand and thus increase available agricultural land (Froidevaux 1978).

• 1879: The French Department of Historic Monuments (le service des Monuments Historiques) requested a halt to the construction of the causeway (Doulcier, et al.

1978). In spite of this request, construction was completed on July 31, 1879 (Doulcier, et al. 1978).

• 1897: Construction of the spire at the summit of the abbey (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011).

• 1898: Restoration work begun by Corroyer resumed by Paul Gout (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1906 – 1909: Excavations conducted by Paul Gout to improve access to the Mont (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1907: A study was initiated by the French government to determine the best way to protect “the insularity of the Mont.” (Doulcier, et al. 1978:34)

• 1929: A budget was set aside for projects that would aid in de-silting the Bay, although the proposed projects were never undertaken (Doulcier, et al. 1978).

• 1966: In honor of the one-thousandth anniversary of the Mont, Benedictines symbolically took control, leaving one member to revive “the tradition of meditation and hospitality” of the Mont’s early history (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b:7).

• 1968: Construction of a dam on the River Couesnon, preventing high tide in the Bay from entering the river (Doulcier, et al. 1978).

• 1970: First official investigation into siltation of the Bay initiated (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

• 1979: Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay inscribed on the World Heritage List (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1979).

• 1983: Initiation of the process to remove the Roche-Torin dike, which was preventing the Sélune River from removing sand offshore (Cans 1983; Werther 1984).

• 1983 – 1987: Restoration project undertaken on the ramparts, rooftops, and security equipment of the Mont, as well as an increase in caretaking staff at the site (Ministry of Culture and Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005a).

• 1988 – 1989: Restoration of the statue of Saint Michel (Ministry of Culture and Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005a).

• 1995: Initiation of the project to re-establish the maritime character of Mont-Saint- Michel (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2003).

• 1998: Inscription of The Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France on the World Heritage List; Mont-Saint-Michel is one component of this serial inscription (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1998b).

• 2000 – 2006: Restoration of the statue of Saint Michel, restoration of the abbey roof and Romanesque buildings, consolidation of Mont-Saint-Michel’s rock on the west and south, and restoration of exterior walls of various buildings on the Mont (Ministry of Culture and Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005a).

• 2007: The addition of a buffer zone approved by the World Heritage Committee (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2007).

• 2008 – 2011: Restoration of the ramparts, bay windows of the abbey and Merveille, terraces above the wooded portion of the Mont, and La Maison Verte in the town (État de conservation 2014).

• 2009 – 2015: Implementation of the project to re-establish the maritime character of Mont-Saint-Michel, including the construction of a mainland parking area, a visitor information center, a footbridge connecting the Mont to the mainland, earthen platforms and a submersible ford for emergency vehicles, as well as hydraulic work on the Couesnon River and the demolition of the nineteenth century causeway (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014c; État de conservation 2014).

• 2011: Joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission undertaken to examine the impact of wind farms and the project to re-establish the maritime character of Mont-Saint-Michel (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2012a).

• 2011 – 2014: Reinforcement of the foundations of the ramparts due to erosion, roof restoration on the ramparts (État de conservation 2014; UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2014).

• 2013: Incorporation of a wind turbine zone of exclusion in the regional wind turbine plans (schémas régionaux éoliens) of both Brittany and Lower Normandy (État de conservation 2014).

• 2014: Plans to restore the cloister garden according to a ‘neo-medieval’ design proposed after study of abbey documents in 1965 (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2014).

100

Inscribed Site and Buffer Zone Boundaries and Characteristics

The inscribed site includes Mont-Saint-Michel, comprised of the islet with its

abbey and monastic buildings on the summit, the village on the southeastern slope, and

the wooded northern slope; Tombelaine, a smaller uninhabited islet in the Bay; as well

as the inner portion of the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel and the entire shoreline of the Bay visible from the Mont (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b; Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2011a). Also included within the inscribed site are la Caserne, the settlement on the mainland that serves as the access point to the Mont, and the area immediately around Moidrey windmill to the south of la Caserne, which is discontinuous with the main boundary of the site (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011; Ministère de la culture

et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable

2011a). The inscribed World Heritage site falls within two departments, La Manche in the region of Lower Normandy and Ille-et-Vilaine in the region of Brittany; the site spans at least portions of four communes in La Manche and seven in Ille-et-Vilaine (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b).

In the 2005 periodic report, France stated that the site boundary was inadequate and that the site had no buffer zone, but that a buffer zone should be added (Ministry of

Culture and Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development

2005a). France submitted a proposal for a buffer zone in 2007 (Figure 7-2), which was evaluated by ICOMOS and approved by the World Heritage Committee (UNESCO

World Heritage Committee 2007). Like the inscribed site, the buffer zone falls within both the departments of La Manche and Ille-et-Vilaine, encompassing 20 communes, including portions of the four within the boundary of the World Heritage site (Castel-

101

Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011). The 2014 periodic report suggests that while the boundary of the World Heritage site is adequate, the buffer zone “could be improved,” local authorities are aware of its boundary but local residents are not, and that another buffer zone may be added (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014c:4).

Both the islet of Mont-Saint-Michel and the neighboring islet of Tombelaine are within the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, being alternately surrounded by tidal flats and the sea depending upon the tides (ICOMOS 1979a). The Mont is characterized by the medieval abbey, monastic structures, village, and ramparts. The inner Bay, including both islets, and the entire shoreline of both the inner and greater Bay visible from Mont-

Saint-Michel are within the boundary of the inscribed World Heritage site (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2011a). The shoreline is characterized primarily by flat pebble beaches, although there are areas with small-scale settlements (État de conservation 2014). La

Caserne, the settlement on the mainland beside the Coueson River that serves as the terrestrial access point to the Mont, is characterized by structures considerably more recent than those on the Mont and highly commercial in nature (État de conservation

2014); there is no explanation as to why la Caserne was included within the boundary of the World Heritage site at the time of inscription. The Moidrey windmill is also within the inscribed site (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2011a); it is a nineteenth century windmill that recent research suggests may have been associated in some way with the abbey (État de conservation 2014). Based on the maps included with the 2005 periodic report, it

102

appears that the Moidrey windmill and its immediate surroundings were part of the

original inscription (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de

l’écologie et du développement durable 2005), effectively making Mont-Saint-Michel

and its Bay a serial site. However, there is no other description of the windmill’s

characteristics or why it was included as a discontinuous area within the property’s

boundaries in any publicly available material provided by the State Party, ICOMOS, or

the World Heritage Centre, including the original nomination, the two periodic reports,

World Heritage Committee decisions, ICOMOS evaluations, state of conservation

reports, or the 2013 reactive monitoring mission.

The buffer zone has two primary components, the maritime and the terrestrial

portions. The maritime portion of the buffer zone follows the boundary of the Ramsar

zone (Figure 7-3), which is an area designated as a protected wetland based on the

Ramsar Convention, and incorporates much of the greater Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, the inner Bay being within the World Heritage site (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). The

northeastern maritime portion of the buffer zone runs along the shore of the Bay, the

only portion of the shoreline that is not within the World Heritage boundary, as it is not

visible from the Mont. The terrestrial portion of the buffer zone follows the border of all

communes adjacent to or partially within the World Heritage property (ICOMOS 2007a).

The general landscape types within the World Heritage site and its buffer zone

share many similarities, although due to its much greater size, the buffer zone

encompasses a greater variety of landscape types. The World Heritage site and buffer

zone both include salt meadows and tidal flats within their maritime boundaries,

103

although the buffer zone also includes a small marine area that never has exposed land during low tide (Centre Régional de Documentation Pédagogique de Bretagne 2005;

Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2011a). Much of the southwestern area of the buffer zone is comprised of agricultural polders, a small portion of which is within the boundary of the

World Heritage site, but also includes parts of the wetlands bordering the polders near

Dol and the wooded massif of Saint Broladre (Centre Régional de Documentation

Pédagogique de Bretagne 2005; Ministère de la culture et de la communication and

Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2011a). The eastern portion of the buffer zone is primarily comprised of two types of agricultural parcels, the first enclosed by either untended chestnut or oak trees, and the second by embankments with hedges or carefully pruned trees (Centre Régional de Documentation Pédagogique de Bretagne

2005; Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2011a). Due east of the Mont are the Sélune and Sée Rivers, their estuaries within the buffer zone, and due south of the Mont is the Couesnon River, surrounded primarily by agricultural land and wetlands, some of which are within the

World Heritage site and some within the buffer zone (Centre Régional de

Documentation Pédagogique de Bretagne 2005; Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2011a).

The terrestrial area outside the buffer zone is quite similar in nature to much of the buffer zone, given that the buffer zone’s terrestrial boundary is formed by commune borders. The area east of the communes within the buffer zones is characterized by a greater predominance of agricultural fields enclosed by oak and chestnut trees than the

104

area within the buffer zone, while the communes to the south and west of the World

Heritage site run through the massif of Saint Broladre and the wetlands near Dol

(Centre Régional de Documentation Pédagogique de Bretagne 2005; Ministère de la

culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable

2011a). The maritime area outside the buffer zone is the edge of the Bay of Mont-Saint-

Michel, where it borders the English Channel (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2011a). The montjoies are located outside both the World Heritage site and the buffer zone (État de conservation 2014).

Legal Protection

World Heritage Site

The abbey, its outbuildings, and the ramparts of Mont-Saint-Michel have been listed as historic monuments since 1874, and are currently protected under the Historic

Monuments Act of 1913. Several buildings on the Mont are protected under the Historic

Monuments Act of 1913, as well (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b). As of the 2012 creation of a classified heritage site at La Caserne, all land within the boundary of the World Heritage site is protected as either a classified or registered heritage site under the status of the Heritage Sites

Act of 1930, as is most of the maritime portion of the inscribed site (Castel-Branco and

Sorosh-Wali 2011; État de conservation 2014).

The shoreline of the Bay is protected from inappropriate development under the

Coastal Act of 1986, which is intended to protect the littoral zone and its natural areas

(Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011; État de conservation 2014). Nearly the entire

World Heritage site is within the bounds of a Ramsar wetland designated in 1994

105

(Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011; État de conservation 2014). A 1997 interministerial decree also created a zone prohibiting flights over the Mont, except with special authorization (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014c).

Buffer Zone and Surroundings

Some portions of the buffer zone, primarily the estuaries along the Sélune and

Sée Rivers, the Couesnon River basin, the polders southwest of Mont-Saint-Michel, and maritime areas near the inner Bay, are protected as either classified or registered heritage sites (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). There is currently a proposal under study to extend the boundary of the classified heritage site to include much of the buffer zone to the east and southeast of the site (État de conservation 2014). The maritime portion of the buffer zone most distant from the World Heritage site aligns with the Ramsar boundary (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005).

As a significant portion of the buffer zone falls outside the boundaries of classified and registered heritage sites, much of the legal protection for the buffer zone is accomplished through spatial planning documents. Within the department of La

Manche, the communes are protected by either a POS or a PLU, with remaining POS documents in the process of conversion to PLUs (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali

2011). In the department of Ille-et-Vilaine, all but two of the communes are protected by a PLU and the remaining two have a POS that is under revision (Castel-Branco and

Sorosh-Wali 2011).

106

A wind turbine exclusion zone involving 169 communes has been established that corresponds with the newly defined area of landscape influence (aire d’influence paysagère) (Figure 7-4), encompassing all of the buffer zone other than the northern tip of the Bay, as well as extending into its terrestrial surroundings on all sides to include the montjoies (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014c; UNESCO

World Heritage Committee 2014). The wind turbine exclusion zone is not legally binding, but is included in the regional wind turbine plans of Lower Normandy and

Brittany, plans used by the officials in charge of approving permits for wind turbines

(État de conservation 2014). Currently a project is underway to extend both the classified heritage site surrounding the Mont, which will exclude urbanized areas, and the protected surroundings of Mont-Saint-Michel as a classified historic monument, which will include urbanized areas (État de conservation 2014).

Management and Monitoring

There are both privately and publicly owned areas within the World Heritage site, with the Center for National Monuments managing the state-owned abbey, its outbuildings, and the ramparts (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b). The State Party indicated in the 2005 periodic report that there was no site manager, but that one was needed (Ministry of Culture and

Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005a).

Numerous agencies participate in site management, including the Ministry of Culture and Communication, the Center for National Monuments, territorial government representatives for both Ille-et-Villaine and la Manche, the inter-basin commission

(Commission interbassins) for water management, the mission for the re-establishment

107

of the maritime character of the Bay, and the interdepartmental association for

sustainable development in the Bay (association interdépartementale pour le

développement durable de la baie) (Ministry of Culture and Communication and Ministry

of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005a). Given the number of administrative

units and agencies involved in the site’s management, the State Party suggested that

coordination between them should be improved through the creation of a committee to

determine each agency’s responsibilities (Ministry of Culture and Communication and

Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005a). The 2011 reactive monitoring

mission agreed with this need, and further recommended the creation of a management

plan based on a landscape approach to encompass the site and its setting (Castel-

Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011).

The State Party drafted a concept proposal for the components of a management

plan that will guide conservation expertise, protection of the site’s OUV, sustainable

development in the region, coordination of regional stakeholders, and promotion of consistent public and private policies throughout the area around Mont-Saint-Michel

(État de conservation 2014). This concept proposal was reviewed and approved by

ICOMOS in 2013, and the State Party plans to draft a management plan on the basis of

the proposal and in accordance with the declaration of OUV once it is approved by the

World Heritage Committee (État de conservation 2014). According to the State Party,

the management plan will likely have a duration of 15 to 20 years, and while it will not

have regulatory status, it will be used as a guide for stakeholder actions; ICOMOS

suggested that the plan be incorporated into local planning documents to lend it more

weight (État de conservation 2014). Although the plan has yet to be completed, in 2013

108

a management coordinator was appointed to implement the plan and coordinate stakeholders once it is in place (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2014).

France reported that, while the site is under considerable monitoring, it does not specifically target management issues or OUV (État de conservation 2014). Much of the monitoring relates to tourism, hydrological conditions in the Bay, and the physical state of the structures on the Mont (État de conservation 2014).

Issues and Actions Taken

Nineteenth Century Earthworks, Siltation of the Bay, and Related Tourist Accommodations

At the time of inscription in 1979, the State Party and World Heritage Committee were aware that Mont-Saint-Michel was in danger of becoming landlocked due to siltation (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b). Nineteenth century earthworks, including the Roche-Torin dike, the causeway connecting the Mont to the mainland, and various polders along the shore of the Bay, had originally been intended to increase agricultural land and protect the coastline by promoting the accumulation of sand and sediment (Froidevaux 1978). The earliest complaint about the 1877 construction of the causeway connecting the Mont to the mainland was registered by the Department of Historic Monuments in 1879 (Doulcier, et al. 1978). However, construction continued in spite of the complaint, and was completed in mid-1879

(Doulcier, et al. 1978). After completion, the issue of the earthworks was debated off and on between various French agencies, with disagreements about altering the layout and length of the causeway, as well as the height of the Roche-Torin dike from the late nineteenth century through the onset of World War II, at which point the project to alter the earthworks was dropped (Doulcier, et al. 1978).

109

Although the problem posed to the Mont by silt build-up in the Bay had been recognized even in the late nineteenth century (Werther 1984), the first official investigation of this process was initiated in 1970 (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b), after the 1968 completion of a dam impacting hydrological flow on the Couesnon River (Doulcier, et al. 1978). The study of siltation included on-site monitoring as well as the creation of a nearly 7,000 square foot scale model representing 75 square kilometers of the Mont and the Bay with a tidal generator

(Doulcier, et al. 1978). In 1982, the results of the study showed that roughly 1,300,000 cubic meters of sediment per year continued to be deposited in the Bay, becoming anchored in place by vegetation, and that the Mont would be almost completely landlocked by 1991 (Werther 1984). Writings from the period during and immediately after this study stress the importance of the Mont’s setting and insularity, and thus the importance of taking action to reverse the human-driven siltation occurring in the Bay

(Doulcier, et al. 1978; Froidevaux 1978; M'Bow 1984).

The first action taken was the demolition of the Roche-Torin dike, begun in 1984

(Werther 1984). In 1990, the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee contacted the

French State to express concerns about the state of conservation of Mont-Saint-Michel regarding siltation, and a representative from the UNESCO World Heritage Centre attended a meeting of stakeholders involved with the conservation of the Bay (UNESCO

World Heritage Committee 1990b). The World Heritage Committee expressed further concern that other than beginning the demolition of the Roche-Torin dike, none of the proposed measures to slow the process of siltation had been undertaken (UNESCO

World Heritage Committee 1990a), noting that the demolition of the causeway and

110

construction of a bridge should be accomplished as soon as possible (UNESCO World

Heritage Committee 1990b).

In 1995, the State Party launched the project to re-establish the maritime character of Mont-Saint-Michel, intended to reduce siltation and improve management of tourism (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011). The project began with a study to determine the specific plan for removing the causeway, replacing the parking lot that had been atop the causeway with one on the mainland, adding public transport, and constructing a new bridge; the study was expected to require three to four years, and the implementation of the plan an additional three to four years (UNESCO World

Heritage Committee 1997). In 1999 in honor of the twentieth anniversary of the site’s inscription on the World Heritage List, the French Ministry of Equipment presented the project to re-establish the maritime character of Mont-Saint-Michel to the public

(UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1999).

Work on the project to re-establish the maritime character of Mont-Saint-Michel began in 2009, with alterations to the dam on the Couesnon River in order to reduce the build-up of sediment (État de conservation 2014). From 2010 to 2014, other components have been undertaken and completed, including the construction of a mainland parking area, creation of a shuttle system to transport tourists from the parking area and visitor center to the Mont, hydraulic work on the Couesnon River to improve flushing of sediment, and a non-submersible bridge connecting the Mont to the mainland (État de conservation 2014). The 2011 reactive monitoring mission conducted by representatives of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS was primarily aimed at evaluating wind turbines near the Mont, as discussed below, but also

111

investigated activities in the area related to the earthworks and tourism (Castel-Branco

and Sorosh-Wali 2011). At the time, construction plans included a partially submersible

embankment as a connection point between the bridge and the Mont; the mission

recommended limiting the height of this embankment to 6.8 m to allow “maximum time

for the recuperation of the maritime character of Mont-Saint-Michel” and reducing the

visual impact of the embankment (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011:8). Two

independent studies, one conducted by the Ministry of Interior in Charge of Civil Safety

(ministère de l’intérieur chargé de la sécurité civile) and the other by fire and emergency

services of la Manche, concluded that the minimum height of the embankment should

be 7.3 m, or safety of tourists and residents of Mont-Saint-Michel would be

compromised (État de conservation 2014). Demolition of the nineteenth century

causeway and construction of the partially submersible 7.3 m embankment are

expected to be completed in 2015 (État de conservation 2014). The materials for the

bridge and embankment were selected to closely match the color and texture of the

pitch sand around Mont-Saint-Michel in order to reduce their overall visual impact on the site (État de conservation 2014).

Wind Turbines

After receiving complaints from French associations about the construction of wind turbines in the vicinity of Mont-Saint-Michel, specifically the six turbines built at

Trémeheuc and proposed wind farms at Tremblay and Argouges, the World Heritage

Committee requested a report on the issue from the State Party (Castel-Branco and

Sorosh-Wali 2011; UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2010a). The State Party reported that there was already a 2005 wind farm charter for Ille-et-Vilaine and a 2007 departmental scheme for wind farms for la Manche, and that development zones for

112

wind farms were under study in both departments (UNESCO World Heritage Committee

2010a).

At the request of the World Heritage Committee, in November of 2011 French

authorities welcomed representatives of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and

ICOMOS to undertake a reactive monitoring mission at Mont-Saint-Michel (Castel-

Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011). The main purpose of the mission was to “understand

the impact of wind turbines on the outstanding universal value of the site.” (Castel-

Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011:7) Immediately prior to the mission, the World Heritage

Committee requested that the State Party prepare a statement of OUV to help mitigate

the potential impact of wind turbines, begin drafting a management plan based on the

new statement of OUV, and suspend any wind turbine construction that might be visible

from the Mont until the results of the mission could be reviewed (Castel-Branco and

Sorosh-Wali 2011). The mission noted the high potential for extremely tall wind turbines

to negatively impact the site’s OUV even kilometers from Mont-Saint-Michel, given that

the large moving blades are particularly perceptible by the human eye and that they

have blinking lights visible at night (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011). For example,

the wind turbines at Trémeheuc are visible even though they are 23 km from the Mont

(Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011). The final recommendations of the mission members included the following points related to wind turbines:

• the creation of a zone of exclusion outside the buffer zone for wind turbines at least 50 m in height, the zone being determined cartographically on the basis of visibility to and from Mont-Saint-Michel from the height of the proposed wind turbine;

• the creation of cartographic tools for developers to use when creating impact studies about the visibility of wind turbines;

113

• public meetings to assess local stakeholder perceptions of proposed wind turbine projects;

• the implementation of a management plan and a committee to coordinate the many public and private agencies involved in regulation of the site and its surroundings. (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011)

In response to these recommendations, the State Party enlarged the first wind turbine exclusion zone, expanding its boundaries to match those of the area of landscape influence that was drawn up to include all of the montjoies and principal viewpoints toward the Mont (État de conservation 2014). The wind turbine exclusion zone has been incorporated into the regional wind turbine plans of both Brittany and

Lower Normandy; while these plans are not legally binding, they provide evaluation tools for the authorities in charge of approving wind turbine permits (État de conservation 2014). As an additional evaluation aide, the State Party has also created a

GIS tool for both developers and officials in assessing proposed projects (État de conservation 2014). A proposal for establishing a management plan that will include the wind turbine exclusion zone was evaluated by ICOMOS in 2013, as discussed above.

Furthermore, the State Party felt that the site’s OUV had been poorly understood in terms of its landscape, and held a symposium on the topic for local stakeholders in

2013 (État de conservation 2014).

In addition to the actions taken to respond to specific recommendations by the mission, the State Party is also currently in the process of extending the protected surroundings of the classified historic monument of Mont-Saint-Michel, as well as extending the classified heritage site surrounding the Mont (État de conservation 2014).

The protected surroundings of the historic monument have been proposed on the basis of “co-visibility,” including areas visible from the Mont and areas from which the Mont is

114

visible; particular protection will be given to the Mont and to the montjoies, although construction in the areas between them will also be evaluated on the basis of volume and color (État de conservation 2014). The classified heritage site focuses on the overall landscape of the Bay interpreted as a patchwork of diverse landscape types united by the Mont as a landmark (État de conservation 2014).

Development

The World Heritage Committee expressed concern in 1990 that communes along the coast of the Bay that were not within the boundary of the World Heritage site, but which were within visual range of the Mont, were not always aware of the cultural and natural values of the area that require protection from inappropriate development

(UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1990a). The Bureau of the World Heritage

Committee suggested that the site boundary be extended to include all communes along the coastline (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1990a). The Bureau of the

World Heritage Committee had been particularly concerned about the proposed construction of a pig farm and an amusement park near the site, although the French

State responded with assurances that neither of these construction projects had been approved (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1991).

The 2005 periodic report indicated that development pressure was a concern at

Mont-Saint-Michel, particularly as relates to tourist accommodations and the intensification of fishing, shellfish harvesting, and pasturage in the Bay area (Ministry of

Culture and Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development

2005a). The surroundings of the classified historic monument of Mont-Saint-Michel are currently in the process of being expanded in order to increase regulation of development within view of the monument, and the management plan being drafted will

115

include guidelines related to sustainable development, including the maintenance of traditional economic activities such as livestock breeding, fishing, and shellfish harvesting (État de conservation 2014).

Natural Disasters and Conservation Issues

Substantial storms caused damage at Mont-Saint-Michel in 1987 and 1999

(Ministry of Culture and Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable

Development 2005a). Significant restoration projects took place in the years immediately following each of these storms, of particular note the need to repair the roof and statue of Saint Michael on the abbey, as well as consolidation of portions of the islet’s rock, after the storm in 1999 (Ministry of Culture and Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005a).

Erosion has caused issues on the Mont, particularly for the ramparts, which have been under conservation to reinforce their foundations since 2011 (UNESCO World

Heritage Committee 2014). Beginning in 2015, water penetration to the knights’ hall from the cloister garden above will be addressed through a project involving the removal of the garden soil and reinforcement to the building; once the issue of water penetration has been dealt with, the garden will be restored according to a 1965 “neo-medieval” design (État de conservation 2014).

Discussion

The primary values of the World Heritage site include its medieval architecture, the site’s silhouette against the tidal flat, the views to and from Mont-Saint-Michel within its landscape setting, the site’s relationship to the tides alternately surrounding and exposing the islet, its association with the cult of the archangel Michael and medieval

Christianity, its status as a medieval pilgrimage destination, and its remoteness and

116

isolation even within its own landscape. While the site’s architectural features, including its silhouette, must be safeguarded through the legal protections afforded the World

Heritage property as a classified historic monument and a classified heritage site, its remaining values all relate to its setting and surrounding landscape, and thus quite intimately to its buffer zone. Given that the site was traditionally difficult for pilgrims and visitors to reach due to the dangers associated with navigating the tidal flats or swift currents, and was known for its isolation, any substantial reduction in this sense of isolation and separation constitutes a significant threat to the site.

Currently, wind turbines present a significant threat to the site’s OUV by adding intrusive and highly visible elements to its largely horizontal landscape setting. The buffer zone added in 2007 proved insufficient protection against the construction of wind turbines visible from Mont-Saint-Michel. The area of landscape influence, which extends beyond the buffer zone to include important views to and from the Mont, constitutes an important step in preventing the construction of visible wind farms. France has committed to increasing its use of renewable sources to 20% of its energy production; with strict regulations in terms of proximity of wind turbines to other structures, this severely limits areas where new wind farms can be located and increases the desirability for developers to consider sparsely populated areas like those around Mont-

Saint-Michel (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011). Given the sensitivity of the landscape and the pressure for suitable locations for wind turbines, the threat to the visual integrity of Mont-Saint-Michel should not be underestimated, particularly given that the regional wind turbine plans have no regulatory authority. Extending the buffer zone to incorporate the entire area of landscape influence, and thus raise awareness of

117

the need to protect Mont-Saint-Michel, would be one option. However, coordinating the number of communes involved – 169 in the area of landscape influence, versus the 20 within the current buffer zone and World Heritage site – seems likely to be prohibitive and inefficient, especially given that the main concern beyond the existing buffer zone relates primarily to extremely tall structures, such as wind turbines. Another option would be to create a tiered buffer zone system like that of the Rhaetian Railway in the

Albuna/Bernina Landscapes, with the existing buffer zone being primary and linked to more strict guidelines and regulations, and the area of landscape influence acting as a secondary buffer zone used to safeguard distant views from large-scale construction.

The other major threat to the site’s OUV is siltation of the Bay. While this is a natural process to some degree, it has been greatly accelerated due to earthworks and dam built since the nineteenth century (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011). The project to re-establish the maritime character of Mont-Saint-Michel is nearly complete, and will hopefully be sufficient to prevent the Mont from becoming landlocked.

Monitoring within the World Heritage boundary and the buffer zone will be important in order to ensure that the work undertaken will sufficiently restore the flushing of sediment. Should monitoring indicate insufficient flushing, it might prove useful to extend the buffer zone to include the entire drainage basin that flows into the Bay.

Also problematic is the fact that the montjoies fall outside both the World

Heritage site and the buffer zone, although they are within the area of landscape influence. The montjoies are closely related to the Mont’s integrity both as a free- standing World Heritage site and as part of the Routes of Santiago de Compostela in

France, having been important points along the pilgrimage route providing pilgrims’

118

initial view of the Mont since the Middle Ages. If the montjoies are deemed not to demonstrate the OUV of either World Heritage site, they have related values and should be protected as such. This is a puzzling omission given that la Caserne and the Moidrey windmill have been included within the World Heritage site’s boundary without any explanation as to how they relate to the site’s values in the proposed declaration of

OUV. The montjoies will be included in the area of landscape influence, so a secondary buffer zone based on this boundary may also address this issue if provisions to protect the montjoies are included.

One potential weakness of the current buffer zone is its large size. That the buffer zone boundary corresponds with the boundaries of the communes is beneficial in the sense that local authorities will not have to make a distinction between areas inside and outside the buffer zone. However, the need to coordinate 20 communes with different spatial planning regulations and legal protections may prove difficult. The management plan being drafted includes provisions for coordinating these many local authorities and stakeholders, although it should also include a clause for re-evaluation and renewal, given that the State Party suggests it will be valid only for 15 to 20 years.

A uniform method for monitoring the buffer zone will help promote consistent protection of the site.

The management plan is expected to address sustainable development that will promote traditional economic activities in the region, including fishing, harvesting shellfish, and the use of the salt meadows and polders for livestock pasture. These activities have shaped the landscape around the Bay, and continue to be practiced today, mainly within the buffer zone. The management plan also calls for increased

119

historical and archaeological research in the region to discover more about how nearby natural and cultural sites relate to the Mont and to pilgrimage routes. Both of these facets provide the opportunity for the buffer zone to serve as an area that relates to the

Mont’s integrity, that aids in understanding its OUV, and that promotes both traditional economic patterns and the diffusion of the heavy flow of tourists into the region.

120

Figure 7-1. Photos of Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay. A) Mont-Saint-Michel from the mainland. (Photo courtesy of author.) B) Main street of Mont-Saint-Michel. (Photo courtesy of author.) B) Parking on the causeway in front of Mont-Saint- Michel. (Photo courtesy of author.)

121

Figure 7-2. Map of Mont-Saint-Michel inscribed site and buffer zone boundaries. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2011a) The dark orange area is the inscribed World Heritage site, and the yellow-orange area is the buffer zone.

122

Figure 7-3. Map of the Ramsar zone around Mont-Saint-Michel. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005) The blue area shows the boundaries of the Ramsar zone within the Bay area.

123

Figure 7-4. Map of the area of landscape influence of Mont-Saint-Michel. (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011) The purple boundary marks the extent of the area of landscape influence; solid pink marks the area where wind turbines are completely prohibited, and the hatched pink area is where wind turbine placement is determined based on view. The montjoies are marked by purple points.

124

CHAPTER 8 CASE STUDY II: PALACE AND PARK OF VERSAILLES

Palace and Park of Versailles: General Site Description

The Palace and Park of Versailles was inscribed in 1979 with no buffer zone; a buffer zone was added in 2007 (Figure 8-1) (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and

Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d).

This site represents the designed cultural landscape typology as well as the historic buildings and ensembles typology. Versailles is an extensive series of palaces and their landscaped grounds, and was the seat of the French king from Louis XIV through Louis

XVI, as well as the inspiration for the ideal royal residence in much of Europe during that era (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015h). The property is also renowned for the works of many of the epoch’s greatest artists and architects (ICOMOS 1979c). Site components include the main palace, which contained the living quarters of the royal family; the stables; the park, containing the Grand Canal and the orangery; the Grand

Trianon, an ensemble of buildings with its own park; the Petit Trianon, a small palace that primarily served as apartments for Marie Antoinette; and the view from the end of the Grand Canal (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979c).

Outstanding Universal Value

This palace complex served as the royal residence for kings Louis XIV, Louis XV, and Louis XVI, undergoing alterations to its architecture, grounds, artwork, and decorative elements during this time (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015h). The palace ceased to function as a royal residence with the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century, functioning as a State museum for much of its time since the early nineteenth century (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions

125

gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d). The structures and their grounds owe their form to renowned artists and craftsmen of the seventeenth century, who were selected to craft this ensemble (ICOMOS 1979c).

Inscription Criteria

The original nomination of the site proposed inscription on the basis of four cultural criteria: (i), (ii), (iii), and (vi) (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

1979c). ICOMOS recommended inscription on the basis of three criteria: (i), (ii), and (vi)

(ICOMOS 1979c), under which the site was inscribed by the World Heritage Committee

(UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1979). No explanation of the three criteria is included in the brief description comprising the current declaration of OUV on the

UNESCO World Heritage website, nor are the criteria described in the 2014 periodic report, although the ICOMOS recommendation for the three criteria is included verbatim in the 2005 periodic report. ICOMOS suggested the following justification for inscription criteria:

• (i) Versailles is a “unique artistic realisation,” in terms of scope, “quality and originality.”

• (ii) The site strongly influenced much of Europe from the end of the seventeenth century through the eighteenth century, resulting in numerous sites inspired by Versailles’ architecture and grounds.

• (vi) Versailles is the best example of life at the French court during this period, the seat of the high point of “l’étiquette,” or courtly manners, under Louis XIV. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were also taken from Versailles on October 6th, 1789 during the French Revolution (ICOMOS 1979c:2).

Authenticity and Integrity

Overall, the State Party deems the site’s authenticity and integrity intact and well- preserved (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d). Although the original furnishings

126

of the ensemble were auctioned off during the French Revolution, the museum has worked to re-acquire as many of these furnishings as possible in the interests of preserving the site’s authenticity and integrity (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel

2014d).

Site Chronology: Basic History, Conservation Efforts, and World Heritage Activity

• 1661-1690: Construction of the palace and grounds under Louis XIV (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979c).

• Eighteenth century: Alteration of private apartments for the king and queen under Louis XV, with “no major alterations” under Louis XVI (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979c:3).

• 1789: Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette taken from Versailles during the French Revolution (ICOMOS 1979c).

• 1793: Palace furnishings auctioned off after the execution of Louis XVI in 1793, while the royal collection of artwork was brought to the Louvre (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979c).

• Early nineteenth century: First major restoration project undertaken by Napoleon I, although the ensemble “fell into disrepair” after his reign (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979c:4).

• Post-World-War-I: Second major restoration effort undertaken (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979c).

• 1952: Third major restoration effort undertaken, with a focus on the Grand Trianon ensemble (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979c).

• 2000: Repairs to the façade after a severe storm damaged Versailles in 1999 (Ministry of Culture and Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005b).

• 2007: The addition of a buffer zone approved by the World Heritage Committee (WHC 2007).

• Current: Ongoing conservation efforts continue at Versailles, including work to the façades, roofs, and grounds (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d).

127

Inscribed Site and Buffer Zone Boundaries and Characteristics

The inscribed site of Versailles includes the palace complex and its gardens,

including those of the Grand and Petit Trianons, as well as a narrow view band

extending from the end of the Grand Canal furthest from the main palace (ICOMOS

2007b). In the 2005 periodic report, France suggested that the boundary of the

inscribed site was adequate, but that a buffer zone should be added (Ministry of Culture

and Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005b).

France submitted a proposal for a buffer zone in 2007, which was evaluated by

ICOMOS and approved by the World Heritage Committee. The buffer zone’s boundary

corresponds to all of the area covered by either the protected surroundings of the

classified historic monument of Versailles or the classified heritage site of the Plain of

Versailles (Figure 8-2) (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de

l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). The protected surroundings of the

classified historic monument delineate an area with a radius of 5000 m from the king’s

bed chamber in the palace (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions

gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d), as well as an

area 2000 m to the south, 3000 m to the north, and 500 m to the west of the Grand

Canal’s view corridor (ICOMOS 2007b). The classified heritage site Plain of Versailles has an irregular boundary encompassing the rural area around the view corridor of the

Grand Canal and northwest of Versailles (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). The boundaries of both the inscribed World Heritage site and its buffer zone cross the borders of numerous communes; in total, the buffer zone encompasses portions of 22 communes in 2 departments (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales

128

responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d). The buffer zone includes urban areas to the south, southwest, east, and northeast of the site, and farmland to the north, northwest, and west of the site (ICOMOS 2007b). The buffer zone is largely screened from view within the World Heritage site by walls or trees. The rural area of the buffer zone abuts the more remote areas of the grounds of the World Heritage site (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2011b), many of which are less formal in nature than the grounds near the palaces (Figure 8-3), and thus does not present a marked contrast in setting. Likewise, the urban areas adjacent to the World Heritage site currently pose little visual distraction, as they are similar in height to the main buildings of the palace and the tree screen (Figure 8-4) that bounds much of the park, although gaps in the wall or views from elevated locations within the World Heritage site allow glimpses of these areas

(Figures 8-5 and 8-6).

Legal Protection

The entire World Heritage site is protected under the Historic Monuments Act of

1913, with various portions classified on different dates (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d). Most of the buffer zone is also protected under the provisions of the

Historic Monuments Act of 1913 dealing with the surroundings of historic monuments

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005), although in this case, the surroundings are considerably more extensive than is typical, as normally they would include only an area within a radius of 500 m from the center of the classified historic monument. The only area outside the surroundings of the classified historic monument is the northwestern portion

129

of the buffer zone, which is protected as a classified heritage site under the status of the

Heritage Sites Act of 1930 (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). Furthermore, the other areas of farmland outside Versailles but inside the buffer zone are also protected as classified heritage sites under the status of the Heritage Sites Act of 1930 (ICOMOS 2007b).

Several urban areas within the buffer zone are also designated as registered heritage sites under the status of the Heritage Sites Act of 1930 (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). The urban area within the commune of Versailles directly adjacent to the World Heritage site and within the buffer zone is also a safeguarded sector (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d).

Management and Monitoring

The Park and Palace of Versailles is owned by the French State and is managed by the Ministry of Culture and Communication (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979c). There are currently two primary management tools, the 2003-

2020 master plan that outlines restoration and improvement projects at the site of

Versailles (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d; Ministry of Culture and

Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005b), and the management plan of the Plain of Versailles classified heritage site that bears on a portion of the buffer zone and thus the site’s setting (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d). A management plan for the park of Versailles is also being drafted in

130

accordance with the OUV of the site (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and

Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d).

The site is monitored for conservation and tourism needs, although it is not specifically focused on either the needs of management or the site’s OUV (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d); there does not appear to be a specific monitoring mechanism for the buffer zone.

Issues and Actions Taken

In 1989, the Canadian delegate to the World Heritage Committee expressed concern regarding tree felling within the boundary of the World Heritage site (UNESCO

World Heritage Committee 1989). No further action was taken or decision was made by the Committee regarding this issue. The 2014 periodic report suggests that the management authorities are in contact with the industrial sector in the area, which, according to the UNESCO definition may include timber exploitation, but that cooperation between the management authority and the industrial sector is limited

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d).

The 2005 periodic report indicates that there was a reactive monitoring mission to Versailles in 2000 (Ministry of Culture and Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005b), following a particularly destructive storm, although neither the documentation nor specifics of this mission are available to the public. Following this mission, restoration work on the palace façade and exterior woodwork was undertaken (Ministry of Culture and Communication and Ministry of

Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005b).

131

The 2005 periodic report also describes potential threats to the World Heritage site, including development pressures, natural disasters, and tourism pressure, in general, as well as specific pressure due to development within the town of Versailles and other nearby towns and issues with water supply for the park’s fountains (Ministry of Culture and Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development

2005b). Tourism has continued to sharply increase since the 2005 periodic report, although new monitoring mechanisms for tourism and cooperation with the local tourism industry have helped in protecting the site (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and

Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d).

The 2014 periodic report indicates that one negative factor impacting Versailles is development in the buffer zone, stating that “the setting and the landscape environment of the palace and its gardens seem currently affected by visual perturbations that are at least as significant as the two storms of 1990 and 1999 that jeopardized the nearby vegetative screen.” (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and

Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d:9).

A study of the site’s landscape began in 2008 in order to assist in dealing with this issue

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d). As stated in the report, protection against visual intrusion may also be improved through better coordination between the

22 communes within the buffer zone (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and

Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d)

Proposed train transportation projects that might have negatively impacted the site have also been resolved with the assistance of stakeholders, and the train tracks

132

will be screened from view of the palace (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and

Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d).

Although the 2014 periodic report suggests that the boundaries of the World

Heritage site and its buffer zones are known to both local authorities and local stakeholders, there is a need for improved management coordination to ensure that protection within the buffer zone is consistent (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel

2014d).

Discussion

The primary values related to the World Heritage site include the ensemble of seventeenth century royal structures and grounds, the influence of these structures and grounds on subsequent royal ensembles elsewhere in Europe, and the site’s association with seventeenth and eighteenth century court life. While much of the property’s protection and conservation must occur within the bounds of the World

Heritage site, there are certainly external forces that can, and in some cases have, impact the site, and thus could be relevant to protection through the buffer zone.

The importance of the setting to the site’s values mainly relate to the visual impact on the World Heritage site, whose grandeur relies in part on the scale of its structures and style of its grounds. While much of the property is screened by the use of walls and trees, it still remains important that development and land use beyond that screen either are not visible, for example, by being much taller than the wall or trees, or that any development and land use that is visible be of a scale and style that is not aesthetically discordant with the visually defining features of the site. The site’s sense of grandeur and remoteness would certainly be negatively impacted by the intrusion of tall,

133

modern structures visible from within the grounds or palaces. Currently, the safeguarded sector in the urban area, the classified heritage sites protecting the farmland, and the surroundings of the classified historic monument that comprise the primary protections within the buffer zone have done an adequate job of protecting these characteristics of the World Heritage site. The primary issue in terms of the buffer zone providing inadequate visual protection relates to the possibility of the buffer zone being too small, should there be construction of extremely tall structures outside the buffer zone that are visible within the World Heritage site. No concerns of this nature have been raised, and given that the buffer zone extends for five kilometers around the palace, it seems relatively unlikely that a structure large enough to diminish the scale and sense of place at Versailles could be constructed outside the buffer zone. For example, problems experienced at other World Heritage sites due to wind turbines at a great distance but still visible seem less likely at Versailles, given that its OUV is not closely linked to remoteness and extreme isolation as is the case at other sites.

The site’s visual intactness further relates to an issue mentioned in the 2014 periodic report, the loss of trees screening the property’s perimeter during the storms of

1989 and 1999 (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014d); it is likely that the felling of trees mentioned by the Canadian delegate to the World Heritage

Committee in 1989 relates to removal or loss of trees damaged in the storms. The delegate also suggested that the careful management of natural resources, for example, trees or other vegetative cover, plays as important role in the conservation of not only natural heritage sites, but cultural sites, as well (UNESCO World Heritage

134

Committee 1989). While it may not be possible or even desirable to have a secondary screen of vegetation in the buffer zone in case of damage through natural disaster or pest incursion, it is certainly an option to consider. Any use of a buffer zone in this manner would require management of the vegetation, as well as careful selection of visually compatible species that are unlikely to cause problems with competition for nutrients, spread of pests, or overshadowing any vegetation within the World Heritage site.

Water supply issues have been reported at Versailles, and while improvements to the hydraulic system have largely mitigated this threat to the system of fountains within the grounds, the buffer zone may also have a role to play in protecting the park’s fountain and canal system. Fountains and water features are common components of designed cultural landscapes, and monitoring and regulation of water use or accommodation of hydraulic infrastructure within a buffer zone can aid in maintaining such features.

In the case of Versailles, the buffer zone is comprised of urban areas and farmland surrounding a designed cultural landscape with several ensembles of buildings. The buffer zone’s primary protection for the World Heritage site stems from already extant zones regulated under the status of classified heritage sites, a safeguarded sector, and the surroundings of a classified historic monument. While these protections existed prior to the creation of the buffer zone, the explicit designation of a buffer zone is appropriate to aid in the conservation of the World Heritage site. The buffer zone draws specific attention to the need to use these regulations not only to protect the area within the boundary of each section, as most of this legislation typically

135

does, but also to use the regulations of each section to protect the inscribed World

Heritage site.

A potential weakness of the selected boundary for the buffer zone is that it does not correspond to the communes in which it is located. The potential advantage of having complete administrative units covered by the buffer zone is, however, outweighed in this case by the extensive scale of the classified heritage site and the surroundings of the classified historic monument. These are both well-established and longstanding laws that are the primary means of protecting heritage resources in

France, and thus the local communes are undoubtedly accustomed to adhering to their restrictions as well as being aware of the boundaries.

136

Figure 8-1. Map of Palace and Park of Versailles with buffer zone. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2011b) The dark orange area is the inscribed World Heritage site, and the yellow-orange area is the buffer zone.

137

Figure 8-2. Map of heritage sites and surroundings of the classified historic monument Versailles. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005) The World Heritage site is in orange, classified heritage sites are in dark green, registered heritage sites are in light green, and the surroundings of the monument are in purple. The classified heritage site in the northwest is the Plain of Versailles.

138

Figure 8-3. Versailles: Pasture within the boundary of the inscribed site. (Photo courtesy of author.)

Figure 8-4. Versailles: Screen of vegetation at the edge of the palace grounds. (Photo courtesy of author.)

139

Figure 8-5. Versailles: View of buffer zone from within the palace grounds. (Photo courtesy of author.)

Figure 8-6.. Versailles: View of the buffer zone outside the palace from the orangerie. (Photo courtesy of author.)

140

CHAPTER 9 CASE STUDY III: PREHISTORIC SITES AND DECORATED CAVES OF THE VÉZÈRE VALLEY

Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley: General Site Description

The property Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley was inscribed in 1979 with no buffer zone; as of March 2015, no buffer zone has been added

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015j). This serial site covers 106 ha in total

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g). This site represents three typologies – archaeological heritage, rock-art sites, and fossil hominid sites. Vézère valley is a serial property comprised of fifteen sites (Figure 9-1) that encompass 147 archaeological sites and 25 caves decorated with exceptional prehistoric paintings, engravings, and both low- and high-relief sculptures (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a). These sites are significant for their Paleolithic art, particularly the paintings of Lascaux, as well as their many archaeological artifacts, including human remains, lithic artifacts, food remains, and portable artwork (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a). The property was originally named Decorated

Grottos of the Vézère Valley, but was changed to Prehistoric Sites and Decorated

Caves of the Vézère Valley in 2006 (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2006a).

Individual Sites Comprising the World Heritage Property:

• Cro-Magnon Rock Shelter: This site is known for the discovery of lithic artifacts and three human skeletons that were crucial in defining Cro-Magnons, or early modern humans (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

• Rock Shelter of the Fish: This rock shelter is known for a bas-relief sculpture of a salmon (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

141

• Font-de-Gaume Cave: This is a cave featuring polychrome paintings (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

• Micoque Deposit: Artifacts from the late Acheulean to the early Mousterian eras1 were found at this archaeological site (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

• La Mouthe Cave: This cave features a Magdalenian Period deposit and is decorated with engravings of reindeer, horses, and bison (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

• Laugerie-Basse: This site yielded archaeological remains from the Magdalenian Period through the Iron Age (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

• Laugerie-Haute: This site yielded archaeological artifacts from the middle of the Gravettian Period through the middle of the Magdalenian Period (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

• Grand Roc Grotto: This cave is known for its “extraordinary collection of stalactites and stalagmites” (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a:3); this site has no human-made remains, and the State Party suggested in the 2014 periodic report that it be removed from the listing (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g).

• Combarelles Cave: This cave was decorated with over 300 engravings of animals and symbols; there are also archaeological remains suggesting occupation during the Magdalenian Period (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

• Cap-Blanc Rock Shelter: This rock shelter features two groups of high-relief sculptures, one of bison and the other of horses; a human skeleton was also unearthed here (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

• Lascaux Cave: The most famous of the sites making up this property, Lascaux Cave is decorated with hundreds of paintings of animals (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a). No tools or domestic remains have been found in the cave, leading researchers to believe it was never inhabited but was used for ritual purposes (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a). The three primary areas of the cave are the Hall of the Bulls, painted with a group of bulls; the gallery, with horses, bison, and goats; and the nave and apse, painted with pregnant horses and cows (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

1 For an explanation of the periods of the Paleolithic, see the Chronology section below.

142

• Cro-de-Granville Grotto: This grotto is also known as Rouffignac Cave and features Magdalenian Period mammoths, bison, horses, rhinoceroses, goats, and a bear painted all in black (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

• Roc-Saint-Cirq Grotto: This cave is best known for its engraving of a human figure known as the Sorcerer (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

• Moustier Deposit: Archaeological work here unearthed both human and lithic remains; this site is the namesake for the Paleolithic period known as Mousterian (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

• Madeleine Deposit: Numerous archaeological artifacts were unearthed here; this site is the namesake for the Upper Paleolithic period known as Magdalenian (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a).

Outstanding Universal Value

The current statement of OUV is based upon knowledge of the sites and of

Paleolithic cultures at the time of inscription in 1979; subsequent research has revealed a great deal about these cultures, and the State Party suggested that there is now a much greater understanding of the site’s OUV (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel

2014g), although it does not appear that a retrospective declaration of OUV has been submitted to the World Heritage Committee. As discussed in the 2014 periodic report, the Vézère Valley represents an extremely dense occupation during the Paleolithic, including sites for gathering resources, decorated caves, and burial sites; this density constitutes an “epicenter of a prehistoric province.” (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g:2) The valley is home to sites that have given their names to Paleolithic periods – for instance, Moustier and Madeleine – and represents sites related to

Neanderthal occupation of the area 80,000 to 40,000 years ago, as well as later Cro-

143

Magnon occupation from 35,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g).

Inscription Criteria

The original nomination of the site made no mention of specific criteria on which to base the inscription. ICOMOS recommended inscription on the basis of criteria (i) and

(iii) (ICOMOS 1979b), under which the site was inscribed by the World Heritage

Committee in 1979 (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1979). No explanation of the individual criteria is included in the long description comprising the current declaration of

OUV on the UNESCO World Heritage website (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015j).

The original ICOMOS evaluation offers a description of the criteria, which was included verbatim in the 2005 periodic report. ICOMOS suggested the following justification for inscription criteria:

• (i) The works of art at several of the sites of Vézère Valley are “universally recognized as masterpieces of prehistoric art,” specifically the Venus of Laussel, the high-relief horses at Cap-Blanc, and the skillful paintings of hunting scenes at Lascaux;

• (iii) the remains and artwork of the sites bear witness to extinct civilizations of the Paleolithic era, demonstrating historic, ethnological, anthropological, and aesthetic value (ICOMOS 1979b:1-2).

Given the advances in knowledge of the Paleolithic in general and these sites in specific since the time of inscription, the State Party provided an updated and thorough explanation of the criteria in the 2014 periodic report (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g), although these do not appear to have been formally submitted to the

World Heritage Committee for approval in an official statement of OUV. Criterion (i)

144

describes the sites’ illustration of the varied forms of artistic expression in the

Paleolithic, including details about the paintings at Lascaux, the engravings at Gro-de-

Granville Grotto, the polychrome paintings at Font-de-Gaume Cave, the engravings at

Combarelles Cave, the engravings and paintings at the La Mouthe Cave, the high-relief

sculpture at the Cap-Blanc Rock Shelter, and the engravings at Roc-Saint-Cirq Grotto

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales

responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g). Criterion (iii) describes the

variety of sites illustrating different forms of occupation and domestic activity during the

Paleolithic (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales

responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g).

Authenticity and Integrity

The paintings of the Cro-de-Granville Grotto nearest the cave’s entrance were

damaged by nineteenth and early twentieth century graffiti, although most are still in

excellent condition (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010). Many of these sites were also first

discovered and excavated in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when

archaeological excavations were sometimes destructive and often poorly documented in

comparison to modern techniques; for example, both the Cap-Blanc Rock Shelter and

the Cro-Magnon Rock Shelter experienced invasive excavations (Desdemaines-Hugon

2010). Shortly after its 1901 discovery, the friezes of Cap-Blanc were cleaned to remove

lichen, in the process removing the remains of pigment that had been present

(Desdemaines-Hugon 2010). The carving at the Rock Shelter of the Fish was nearly

removed in 1912 (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010), and was part of the drive to establish

protection for this type of heritage with the Heritage Act of 1913 (Commission nationale

pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel

145

et naturel 2014g). At other sites, for example, the caves of Lascaux and Combarelles, significant alterations to the entrance and ground plane, respectively, were undertaken in order to accommodate tourist visitation (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010; Geneste 2006), as was the installation of lighting and other safety features for visitors at other sites open to the public. While these post-discovery losses prior to the site’s inscription are unfortunate, given the antiquity of these sites and the gradual losses over the course of millennia due to natural processes, the overall authenticity of the sites remains intact.

In the 2014 periodic report, the State Party suggested that the Cave of Grand

Roc be removed from the World Heritage site, as it is strictly a natural site (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g) and thus does not share the OUV of the property; no action has been taken on this suggestion. Since the property’s inscription, numerous caves and archaeological sites in the Vézère Valley have been discovered that relate to the property’s OUV, including the Pataud Rock Shelter, Ferrassie, Roc de Marsal,

Regourdou, Bernifal Cave, Castel-Merle, and Laussel (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g). Other related sites along tributaries to the Vézère River have also been found, including Pech de l’Aze, Combe General, La Gane, Gravette, and Cussac

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g). Although no specific plans for an application to extend the site were mentioned, the State Party suggested that their addition would allow “a deepening of the understanding of the OUV of the site.”

146

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g:3)

Site Chronology: Basic History, Conservation Efforts, and World Heritage Activity

Other than Grand Roc Grotto, which will not be discussed in this section as it does not have any human association, the sites that comprise this World Heritage property are significant for their Paleolithic context. The Paleolithic is typically divided into three periods – Lower, Middle, and Upper – based on differences in stone tools and technology, as well as associated archaeological remains. The Lower Paleolithic is also known as the Acheulean Period, beginning roughly 500,000 years ago in Europe, and is associated with the hominid Homo erectus (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010). The Middle

Paleolithic, also known as the Mousterian Period, lasted from about 300,000 to 40,000 years ago and is associated with Homo neandertalensis (Neanderthals) in Europe after

200,000 BP2 (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010). The Upper Paleolithic is subdivided into five further periods in Europe. The first of these is the Chatelperronian Period, lasting from roughly 40,000 to 32,000 BP, and associated with both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens, early modern humans, who were often referred to as Cro-Magnons in France

(Desdemaines-Hugon 2010). All Upper Paleolithic sub-periods following the

Chatelperronian are associated strictly with Homo sapiens (Desdemaines-Hugon

2010).The Aurignacian and Gravettian Periods overlapped significantly in France, the former lasting from roughly 35,000 to 22,000 BP and the latter from 29,000 to 22,000

BP; the Gravettian Period is also known as the Perigordian Period in France

(Desdemaines-Hugon 2010). The Solutrean Period lasted from 22,000 to 17,500 BP,

2 BP stands for “before present;” archaeological convention uses 1950 as the point of origin for BP.

147

and the Magdalenian Period from 18,000 to 10,200 BP (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010).

Below are relevant periods and the sites associated with each:

Lower Paleolithic - Acheulean (500,000 to 300,000 BP)

• The Micoque Deposit – Acheulean archaeological remains (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a)

• Middle Paleolithic - Mousterian (300,000 to 40,000 BP)

• The Moustier Deposit (56,000 to 35,000 BP) – Mousterian tools and Neanderthal skeletons (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a)

• The Micoque Deposit – Mousterian archaeological remains (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a)

Upper Paleolithic – Aurignacian Period (35,000 to 22,000 BP)

• Laugerie-Haute – some Aurignacian archaeological remains (Desdemaines- Hugon 2010)

• Cro-Magnon Rock Shelter – some Aurignacian archaeological remains (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010)

• Rock Shelter of the Fish – some Aurignacian archaeological remains (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010)

Upper Paleolithic – Gravettian Period (29,000 to 22,000 BP)

• Cro-Magnon Rock Shelter (28,000 BP) – 5 skeletons of modern humans and related lithics (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a)

• Rock Shelter of the Fish – most of the archaeological remains are from the Gravettian, and damage to the rock wall of the cave indicates that the salmon was carved during or prior to this period (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a)

• La Mouthe Cave – Gravettian archaeological remains (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010)

Upper Paleolithic – Solutrean Period (22,000 to 17,500 BP)

• Laugerie-Haute – the Solutrean chronology was first established using this site’s archaeological stratigraphy (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010)

148

Upper Paleolithic – Magdalenian Period (18,000 to 10,200 BP)

• The Madeleine Deposit – Magdalenian portable art, a child’s skeleton from 10,200 BP (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a)

• Lascaux Cave (18,000 to 17,000 BP) – Magdalenian wall paintings (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a)

• Font-de-Gaume Grotto (17,000 to 13,000 BP) – Magdalenian archaeological remains in the shelter at the mouth of the cave (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010)

• Cro-de-Granville Grotto(14,000 BP) – Magdalenian wall art (Desdemaines- Hugon 2010; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a)

• Combarelles Cave (14,000 to 12,000 BP) - Magdalenian archaeological remains in the shelter at the mouth of the cave (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a)

• Cap-Blanc Rock Shelter (14,000 to 12,000 BP) – Magdalenian archaeological remains and a skeleton in the shelter in front of the sculpted frieze (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a)

• Laugerie-Basse – middle to late Magdalenian graves and artifacts (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a)

• Roc-Saint-Cirq Grotto – Magdalenian archaeological remains in the shelter at the mouth of the cave (Delluc, et al. 1987)

Most of the caves and archaeological deposits were rediscovered in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; the paintings at Cro-de-Granville had been known since the sixteenth century, although not recognized as Paleolithic until 1956

(Desdemaines-Hugon 2010). Other activities and occurrences at the site are discussed below, as each cave and site has its own chronology, and the salient points relate to integrity and conservation issues, most particularly at Lascaux Cave.

149

Inscribed Site and Setting Characteristics

The sites of the inscribed property lie within the basin of the Vézère River, set in a landscape of forested hills and limestone cliffs, with agricultural areas, towns, and small cities interspersed throughout the area. There are seven caves of varying size, three rock shelters, and five archaeological deposits (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a). Eight of the sites are primarily known for their rock art – two of the caves feature polychrome paintings, one cave features black pigment paintings, three caves feature engravings, and two of the rock shelters feature relief sculpture

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a). The remaining six sites with cultural features are known for their archaeological remains related to the Paleolithic, including three sites with hominid remains; three of the sites known primarily for their rock art also had archaeological deposits (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a). One site, Grand Roc Grotto, had no human traces (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g).

The fifteen sites comprising the property are located within seven communes in the department of Dordogne, which is within the region of Aquitaine (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a). The boundaries of all but one site follow the edges of land parcels; three sites occupy a single parcel while the rest occupy multiple parcels, four of which also include roads that pass between the parcels forming the boundary (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2012). On the map provided by the State Party, the boundary of Laugerie-basse appears to be formed by nine complete parcels and three partial parcels (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de

150

l’écologie et du développement durable 2012); no explanation for the irregular boundary is offered by the State Party. In both the 2005 and 2014 periodic reports, the State Party indicated that the site boundaries were adequate, but that a buffer zone was necessary

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g; Ministry of Culture and

Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005c). The

2014 periodic report did, however, suggest that the State Party was working on the creation of a buffer zone proposal, and that the opinions of local communities were being sought prior to designating the boundaries (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g).

Legal Protection

All but one of the sites comprising the property are classified historic monuments under the Historic Monuments Act of 1913 (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and

Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g).

The Grand Roc Grotto is a natural site, and thus is not eligible to be designated as a historic monument; instead, it is protected as a classified heritage site under the

Heritage Act of 1930 (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). Most of the sites are also located within classified or registered heritage sites (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). Cro-de-Granville

Grotto, Roc-Saint-Cirq Grotto, and the Moustier Deposit are in neither a classified nor an registered heritage site (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). Lascaux is within an overlapping

151

classified and registered heritage site that encompasses the entire Hill of Lascaux

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). The remaining sites are all within the boundary of a single registered heritage site, and among these all but la Mouthe Cave and the Cro-

Magnon Rock Shelter are also within smaller classified heritage sites embedded within the registered heritage site (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and

Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). The State Party is also working to implement a classified heritage site with complementary registered heritage sites for the entire valley to offer greater protection at the regional scale (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g). The State Party also plans to create registered or classified heritage sites as necessary once boundaries for the buffer zone proposal have been determined (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g).

Management and Monitoring

Ten of the sites comprising the property are owned by the State and managed by the Ministry of Culture, while the remaining five are privately owned (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g); three of the sites now owned by the State were privately owned at the time of inscription (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

1979a). Until 2004, French law specified that all “subsoil to the center of the earth, except for minerals subject to the Mining Code” belonged to the property owner (Clottes

2006:9); since then, immovable archaeological remains belong to the commune in

152

which they are located, or to the French State if the commune transfers responsibility

(Mathieu 2006).

The Cro-Magnon Rock Shelter, the Micoque Deposit, and Lascaux Cave are closed sites, while the other sites are open to the public (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a), although some, like Font-de-Gaume Grotto, the Combarelles

Cave, and the Cap-Blanc Rock Shelter have extremely limited visitation for conservation purposes. Although it was originally common practice to open any cave or shelter to the public if possible, by 1978, national policy mandated that any newly discovered cave would remain closed (Clottes 2006).

Early research at many Paleolithic sites included destructive archaeological methods and even destructive documentary methods, for instance, direct placement of paper on artwork so that it could be traced; modern work at these sites requires careful archaeological investigation of the context and approval by the Ministry of Culture for any measurement or tracing of artwork, with photographic documentation being preferred (Clottes 2006). The International Center of Prehistory (Pôle international de préhistoire) was established in 1997 to serve as a network for the exchange of information and research between the sites within the World Heritage property and to coordinate management of tourists (Ministry of Culture and Communication and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development 2005c).

Currently the World Heritage site has no management plan, although the State

Party is in the process of drafting one (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and

Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g).

The State Party also established a guidance committee in 2012 to coordinate site

153

owners and managers under the prefect of Dordogne (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g).There is considerable monitoring of these sites, particularly related to temperature, humidity, air quality, water conditions, and microbes within the caves

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g). However, this monitoring is not closely related to management issues or improving the understanding of the site’s OUV

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g). Lascaux Cave, in particular, is under heavy environmental monitoring, both of the cave itself and the hydrological and soil conditions in its external context (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

2015), and many of the monitoring strategies developed at Lascaux have been adapted to the specific needs and conditions of other sites (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g). At the Cro-de-Granville Grotto, the private owners have installed an electric train to manage visitors, reduce pollution due to foot traffic, and carefully control the lighting to which the paintings are exposed; the cave is also strictly closed to all visitation for four months each year (Desdemaines-Hugon 2010). Other sites that are open to the public have installed welcome centers near the entrances, lighting within shelters and caves, and safety measures for visitors on foot.

Issues and Actions Taken

Lascaux Cave

Among the sites included in the World Heritage property, issues reported to and dealt with by the World Heritage Committee have only involved Lascaux Cave. Indeed

154

prior to inscription, by 1960 Lascaux Cave had experienced algae and calcite precipitate

issues due to human visitation, and although it was a privately owned site at the time,

was permanently closed to the public in 1963 by order of the Ministry of Culture

(UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2008b). At the time of its closure, the 1957 air

system was removed and attempts to remediate growth on the paintings using

antibiotics proved ineffective; formol, a weak solution of formaldehyde, worked on the

biological growth, but left behind a deposit of organic matter that promoted the growth of

fungus (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2008b). A monitoring system to track

temperature and humidity was installed beginning in 1965 (UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 2008b). The State Party acquired the site in 1972, and the reproduction site of the Hall of Bulls and the Axial Gallery, known as Lascaux II, opened to the public in

1983 (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2008b).

In 1998, new outbreaks of algae and lichens were discovered (UNESCO World

Heritage Committee 2008b), and since then Lascaux has been under constant study

and subject to varying conservation efforts to control this and subsequent outbreaks.

From 2000 to 2001, a new air regulation system was installed, and immediately

thereafter was the first appearance of “white spots,” caused by the fungus Fusarium

solani, thought to be due to contamination during the work process and by the new air

system (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2008b). The air system was shut down,

and fungicides and antibiotics were used in an attempt to clean the white spots,

although proved ineffective and treatment was stopped (UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 2008b). The treatment caused the buildup of lime carbonate on the floor of

the cavern, increasing the cave’s temperature (UNESCO World Heritage Committee

155

2008b). The Ministry of Culture established the International Scientific Committee for

Lascaux to promote research that would lead to a plan to establish an equilibrium in the cave and prevent new growth (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2008b).

In 2005 and 2006, “black spots,” caused by the fungus Ochroconis lascauxensis, appeared in the apse and nave of Lascaux (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2015; UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2008b). Plans for the

“sanctuarization” of the Hill of Lascaux began in 2006 (UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 2009b), as did the Lascaux simulator project (UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 2011b), as discussed below. In 2007 there was a mold outbreak, followed by

2008 offsite meetings with ICOMOS and IUCN representatives to consider treatment options (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2008b); at this point, it was decided to end the use of biocides, which had been either ineffective or caused other problems such as increasing temperatures in the cave or damaging the stone wall behind the paintings (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2015).

In 2009 new vermiculations, a physical pattern of wavy lines on cavern walls, appeared in the cave (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2010b) and have been under study and monitoring since then (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

2015). Studies in the past ten years have focused on the DNA of the microbes in the cave; the relationship between the microbes, temperature, humidity, light, and organic material (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2008b); the “microclimate of the wall surface” and its relationship to microbes; vermiculations (UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 2010b:Current Conservation Issues - c); monitoring methods (UNESCO

World Heritage Committee 2011b); methods to control the cave’s environment and

156

microbes; the cave’s hydrological system and transfer of CO2 (UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 2013b); and the geology and soil composition of the Hill of Lascaux

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2015). Since 2006, the Lascaux simulator project has been underway, creating a research tool for modeling environmental and climatic conditions in the cave (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2015).

In recent years, the climate of the cave and biological growth have been relatively stable (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013b). Efforts to reduce human presence in the cave continue, with strict planning to minimize human-hours needed for monitoring and conservation; for example, in 2014 monitoring and conservation projects required only 344 human-hours in the main portion of the cave and 155 human-hours in the vestibule (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2015). In 2012, new equipment was installed to better control humidity, temperature, and air quality within the cave (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013b).

The “sanctuarization” of the Hill of Lascaux, begun in 2006, is a multi-stage project intended to protect Lascaux Cave by reducing external impacts. The State Party learned that the water catchment of Lascaux Cave was partially outside state-owned property and has since purchased all of the land of the Hill of Lascaux (UNESCO World

Heritage Committee 2009b). The access road between the entrance of Lascaux Cave and Lascaux II, which is located 200 m from the original cave on the Hill of Lascaux, as well as the road between Lascaux Cave and the Régourdou archaeological site, have been closed to reduce vehicular traffic that might damage the cave (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2015). Construction of a new museum at the foot of the

157

Hill of Lascaux began in 2014; this museum will include a complete replica of Lascaux

Cave, replacing Lascaux II, which represented only 50% of the original cave (Ministère

de la culture et de la communication 2015). Once construction of the new museum is

complete, Lascaux II will be closed (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

2015). There are currently plans to close the parking lot of Lascaux II and have visitors

arrive on foot or via shuttle until the new facility is complete (Ministère de la culture et de

la communication 2015). The State Party is also working to establish a fire break on the

hill around Lascaux Cave, as wild fires are a threat in the area; the fire break will be

accomplished in stages and by using the least invasive means of tree removal possible

in order to prevent disturbing the cave or water flow into the cave (Ministère de la

culture et de la communication 2015).

Another potential risk identified is impact by agricultural activity. Studies of

Lascaux’s context have found that resistant micro-organisms appearing in the cave may be the result of agricultural practices or changing climate (Gauthier 2006). Although pesticides and fertilizers are currently found to be within acceptable levels, it is possible that this could change, as could impact due to livestock effluent, and must be monitored

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2015). Ground water level is also being monitored, as agricultural irrigation could impact the hydrological system in the area

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2015). It is also important to note that

Fusarium solani, the fungus responsible for the white spots in Lascaux Cave, is strongly linked to agricultural activity (Sire 2006).

Overall Threats in the Vézère Valley

Although Lascaux has been the focus of ongoing study and conservation efforts, it is possible similar problems could occur at other sites in the valley. Internal monitoring

158

within each decorated cave is ongoing, while the possibility of threats like wild fire or vibrations from vehicular traffic could impact other sites, as well, and the possibility of flooding at low-lying sites was also mentioned in the 2014 periodic report (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014c).

Discussion

The primary values related to the World Heritage site include the archaeological remains and masterful rock art of the Paleolithic, as well as the evidence these sites provide related to the Paleolithic cultures of Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and early modern humans. The most pressing conservation issues for these sites are related to site equilibrium in terms of climate and microbes. Although some of these issues are due to internal factors, there are many that have the potential to be impacted by the sites’ context, just as there are other external threats that must also be mitigated through regulation of the sites’ setting. One of the unique circumstances of the sites that comprise this World Heritage property is that most of the remains are subterranean, and the climate and landscape of the region has changed significantly since the time during which these sites were created and occupied, meaning that visual impact on the setting is not an issue.

As the State Party is currently working with local communities to determine effective boundaries for a buffer zone, as well as to create one or more classified or registered heritage sites to aid in protecting the World Heritage property, the opportunity exists to create a two-tiered buffer zone that would allow regulation of activities likely to impact the property and to monitor contextual conditions in a consistent manner.

Several of the property’s components are already located within classified heritage

159

sites; the immediate setting of each site should be designated as a classified heritage site to allow stricter control of land use in the nearby context, effectively creating an individual buffer zone for each site or cluster of sites. A larger registered heritage site could then be created to envelop the individual classified heritage sites in a secondary buffer zone that would allow both consistent monitoring as well as the ability to take action on problems, either at the scale of the secondary buffer zone or at the scale of an individual site. The secondary buffer zone should encompass either the entire watershed of the Vézère Valley or the entirety of the communes containing the watershed.

The watershed itself is significant in terms of the property’s protection given the complex relationship between the subterranean sites, water, and water-borne contaminants. If, for example, pollutants stemming from agricultural practices in the valley impact any of the sites, this can be addressed either at the scale of the site’s immediate or secondary buffer zone, as appropriate. Likewise, monitoring of the hydrological system and water table at the larger scale may allow for early identification of changing conditions that may impact the interior micro-climate of one or more caves.

While some of the sites are located in the hills and cliffs of the area, many are within the valley bottoms, and face the potential risk of flooding (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g). A buffer zone encompassing the entire watershed would allow for coordinated management of the water system, and the opportunity to intervene with hydrological projects to divert water flow in the case of flood. Any such projects should

160

not impede or alter the normal flow of the hydrological system, in order to avoid changes that could have unintended consequences on any of the heritage sites.

Another advantage to a secondary buffer zone at the scale of the Vézère Valley would be the opportunity to plan and manage regional tourism. Although only 20% of

French sites with Paleolithic rock art are open to the public, they receive almost 20% of total visits to all archaeological sites in France (Geneste 2006). While it seems unlikely that the general popularity of these sites will decrease, visitors can be offered other opportunities so that short visits are not met with disappointment. Supporting museums and interpretive sites can also provide information that a guide might otherwise feel the need to impart when a group is inside a fragile cave, and can be accommodated with the buffer zone so as not to negatively impact the sites they are meant to support. There are already examples of this in the region, including museums with archaeological artifacts, a zoo with species descended from those depicted in the caves, and reproductions like Lascaux II. Expansion of this network could be managed on a regional scale.

It is also possible that the topography of the region could be used to determine a secondary buffer zone larger than the watershed, on the basis of geological areas where new Paleolithic sites might be found. The large number of Paleolithic sites found in the region since the inscription of the World Heritage site suggests that these sites, which are all strongly related to the OUV of the property, should be protected at the regional scale. Potential new sites would also be offered this additional level of protection.

161

Finally, there are potential threats to the subterranean sites due to vehicular traffic and forest fires damaging the subsoil conditions above the caves and shelters.

While several of the sites are located in areas with no vehicular traffic, there are others within sites that have roads above them (Figure 9-2). Many of the sites also have forested areas above them, including those with no roads above them, and should be protected by a firebreak like the one being created on the Hill of Lascaux. The four sites with roads within the World Heritage boundaries should be examined to determine whether or not the roads pose any threat to the sites, and, if so, new routes circumventing the sites could be established within the buffer zone.

Three basic approaches to establishing the boundary of a secondary buffer zone are designating the watershed of the Vézère River, the communes containing this watershed, or the geological area likely to contain new sites related to the World

Heritage property’s OUV. Local input would be valuable in determining which strategy would be preferable – examining whether a particular strategy would result in a buffer zone too large to manage, or whether it would be more helpful for commune representatives to have the entirety of their territory within the buffer zone. Without further administrative input, however, the watershed of the Vézère River seems to be reasonable, given that it would allow authorities to focus resources on monitoring the area most likely to be the source of external impacts on the property’s OUV.

162

Figure 9-1. Map of Vézère Valley with components of World Heritage site. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2012)

163

Figure 9-2. Map of la Mouthe cave in Vézère Valley. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2012) The orange area is the inscribed serial site, the black is the cave, and roads are visible over the cave.

164

CHAPTER 10 CASE STUDY IV: HISTORIC SITE OF LYONS

Historic Site of Lyons: General Site Description

The Historic Site of Lyons was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1998

(Figure 10-1); this 427 ha site was inscribed with a buffer zone of 323 ha (UNESCO

World Heritage Centre 2015e). Like Provins, this site represents the urban and rural

settlements/historic towns and villages typology, although in this case in a dense urban

context. Lyon is a large, modern city that was originally founded by Romans two

thousand years ago; the city’s urban fabric bears witness to its subsequent commercial

and political development, as well as numerous examples of architecture and urban

planning from the Roman era through the present (UNESCO World Heritage Centre

2015e).

Lyon originally developed on two hills, Fourvière and Croix-Rousse, at the confluence of the Rhône and Saône Rivers, and has been an important commercial and trade center since the Roman era (Figures 10-2 and 10-3) (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). Urban settlement here began with the founding of the Roman city Lugdunum on Fourvière Hill, with Roman districts eventually expanding to the slopes of the Croix-Rousse Hill and the left bank of the Saône River; Fourvière’s theater and odeon and Croix-Rousse’s amphitheater still exist today as archaeological parks

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The oldest residential district in

the city lies at the foot of Fourvière Hill along the right bank of the Saône; known as Old

Lyon, this district is home to three neighborhoods and a substantial concentration of

Renaissance era residences (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

The area between the two rivers from the foot of Croix-Rousse Hill to the rivers’

165

confluence is known as Presqu’île; it is the modern city’s center and is home to the

Bellecour and Ainay districts that were laid out on a planned grid in the eighteenth century, with most of the residences in these districts dating from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). North of this area are the upper slopes of the Croix-Rousse Hill, which today is home to a neighborhood developed in the early nineteenth century to accommodate silk workers, typified by multi-story buildings that had workshops with large, shutterless windows on the street front for good lighting, and residences for the workers behind them (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). These three areas all lie within the bounds of the original defensive line established by the year 1000, outside which the city did not expand until the nineteenth century (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

1998b). Lyon is an urban space whose historic residential districts demonstrate remarkable integrity, with 128 of the 174 historic monuments within the bounds of the

World Heritage site being residential structures (Figure 10-4) (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

Outstanding Universal Value

Lyon’s development from the Roman era through the present is well illustrated in its urban fabric (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015e). Extensive remains of Roman public structures have been excavated and preserved, including the theater and odeon on Fourvière hill and the amphitheater on Croix-Rousse hill (UNESCO World Heritage

Centre 2015e). Districts from the Middle Ages and Renaissance are well-represented by private residences from the eleventh through seventeenth centuries, as well as by public buildings and churches (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015e). Eighteenth and

166

nineteenth century urban planning and architecture were blended with earlier medieval structures (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015e).

Inscription Criteria

The original nomination proposed inscription on the basis of criteria (iii) and (v)

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). ICOMOS suggested criteria (ii) and (iv) would be more appropriate (ICOMOS 1998), and the site was inscribed under these criteria (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1998a). The description of the inscription criteria in the official declaration of OUV is identical to the description offered in the ICOMOS evaluation:

• (ii) Lyon has been an urban settlement of commercial and strategic importance for over two thousand years, and constitutes a blending of many European traditions;

• (iv) the city is an exceptional illustration of the “evolution of architectural design and town planning.” (ICOMOS 1998:30; UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015e)

The State Party submitted a retrospective declaration of OUV to the World

Heritage Committee in 2012 (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f), which is awaiting review. No information about whether or not the State Party proposed changes to the wording of the criteria is available.

Authenticity and Integrity

Lyon is a living city, having experienced ongoing alterations to its urban fabric over the centuries (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The State

Party considers that these changes have not negatively impacted the city’s authenticity, as there are still stable districts representing the Renaissance and the eighteenth centuries (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The City of Lyon has

167

also actively pursued policies to protect neighborhood residents and communities when engaging in neighborhood revitalization projects (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

Site Chronology: Basic History, Conservation Efforts, and World Heritage Activity

• Roman era: The Roman city of Lugdunum was founded on Fourvière Hill in 43 BCE, and Emperor Claudius was born here (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). Romans established a series of roads leading out of Lugdunum, encouraging trade and establishing the capital of Lyonnais Gaul here (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The theater, odeon, and amphitheater were constructed in the first century CE (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). Christianity took hold in the city during this period, and in 177 CE records indicate that 48 Christians were “thrown to wild beasts” in the amphitheater (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b:13).

• Middle Ages: The city was important both as a trade hub and religious center during the Middle Ages (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). By 1000, a defensive line had been established around the city; development would not extend past this line until the nineteenth century (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). Numerous important religious structures were built during this period, including the Manécanterie choir school in the late eleventh century, the Ainay abbey in 1107, St. Jean-Baptiste Cathedral between 1160 and 1481, and St. Nizier’s Church from 1303 to 1580 (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). In 1312 Lyon was annexed into the Kingdom of France by King Philip the Fair (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

• Renaissance: The late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries marked a period of prosperity for Lyon, particularly spurred by the silk trade and the publishing of books (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). During this period, King Louis XI sanctioned four annual trade fairs in Lyon, primarily dealing in silk but also spices (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). In 1472, the first printing press came to Lyon, soon to be followed by the publication of books in numerous languages and the first printing of a musical score in 1525 (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). In 1536, Lyon began weaving silk fabrics previously imported from Italy, marking the beginning of an industry that would remain strong in the city until the twentieth century (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). During this period, numerous Italian trade companies established businesses in Lyon, and much of the architecture of Old Lyon is influenced by Italian styles (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). Trade decreased somewhat during the French Wars of Religion, with Lyon being occupied by Protestant troops in 1562, although the city remained an important commercial hub (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

168

• Late sixteenth to eighteenth centuries: This was a period of population increase, leading to threat of epidemics and subsequent plans to expand and beautify the city (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). In 1555 the defensive wall at the foot of the Croix-Rousse Hill was demolished, and a new fortified wall was constructed at the top of the slopes along the line of defensive ditches that had been established there in the first millennium (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). Religious congregations moved into the area on the upper slopes of the Croix-Rousse Hill (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The seventeenth century saw the execution of various city plans developing Place Bellecour and the district around it (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The silk trade and textile industry increased in importance throughout this period, and Lyon became a major center of finance (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). In the second half of the eighteenth century, the marshes east of the Rhône River were drained to allow city expansion; this expansion was accompanied by city beautification plans for the Presqu’île (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

• nineteenth century: The silk trade was so successful during the first half of the nineteenth century that the number of looms in the city increased from 6,000 to 60,000 (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The land owned by religious orders on the slopes of the Croix-Rousse Hill that had been confiscated during the French Revolution were sold and developed into a district to support the silk industry, with the construction of buildings that were part workshop and part dwelling (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). Substantial road planning and alteration occurred in the center city at this time, establishing the modern layout of the historic district (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). In 1853 the Fourvière Commission was created, and began purchasing land on Fourvière Hill in order to protect heritage sites and open space (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

• Late nineteenth to twentieth century: Lyon continued to be a major industrial city, although commercial focus shifted from the silk industry to automobiles, textile chemistry, pharmaceuticals, and the filmmaking sector (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). Artificial silk and the cinematograph were both invented in Lyon, and the predecessor of the Pasteur Institute was founded here (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The first half of the twentieth century also saw numerous projects by the architect and planner Tony Garnier, including the market hall and the Weaving School (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The second half of the twentieth century saw the creation of numerous associations that continue to protect the cultural heritage of the city today, including the Renaissance of Old Lyon Association that successfully fought 1950s urban renewal projects, the Presqu’île Association supporting development and heritage conservation in the city center, and the Lyonnais Association for the Protection of Medieval Archaeological Sites (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

169

• 1964: The first safeguarded sector in France was created to protect the Renaissance Quarter (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

• 1990s: The City of Lyon began focusing on policies promoting heritage conservation, including numerous restoration projects (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

• 1998: The historic center of Lyon was inscribed on the World Heritage List (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015e).

Inscribed Site and Buffer Zone Boundaries and Characteristics

The boundary of the World Heritage site corresponds to the defensive line established by 1000 and which constituted the development limits of the city through the eighteenth century (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). Much of this boundary runs along the western bank of the Rhône River and the old city walls, although in most places the city walls have been replaced by modern roads (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The northern boundary is the site of the sixteenth century city wall, the eastern boundary once had a fortified wall along the river, the western boundary still has portions of the ramparts that surrounded the

Fourvière hill, and the southern boundary follows the former location of the rampart of

Presqu’île (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The World Heritage site encompasses the Roman structures on the Fourvière Hill (Figure 10-5) and the

Renaissance-era Old Lyon at the foot of the hill (Figure 10-6), the fifteenth to nineteenth century neighborhoods between the Saône and Rhône Rivers (Figure 10-7), and the nineteenth century Croix-Rousse neighborhood that was built inside the sixteenth century city wall (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The general pattern from the Renaissance through the nineteenth century was the construction of tall, multi-story residences, often five stories, with sober exterior detailing; in Old Lyon many of these residences are marked by Italian styling, although more fanciful

170

decorative elements are to be found on the interior courtyards and traboules, the internal passages connecting courtyards in this part of Lyon (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). In many cases, civic buildings were designed to blend in with the surrounding residential architecture in terms of scale (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

The buffer zone surrounds the entire World Heritage site, and was determined partially by the topography of the city and partially based on the era of development

(Figures 10-8 and 10-9); the majority of areas within the buffer zone were constructed in the nineteenth centuries, and relate well to the districts within the World Heritage site in terms of scale, but are outside the eighteenth century city limits (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

In the original nomination, the State Party submitted a map of the proposed

World Heritage site and buffer zone that ICOMOS felt was inadequate; the map itself was considered to be unclear in terms of the boundary of the World Heritage site

(ICOMOS 1998). Furthermore, ICOMOS was unsatisfied with the proposed buffer zone, which encompassed only a few city blocks across the Rhône River from the World

Heritage site (Figure 10-10), and recommended that the buffer zone surround the entire inscribed site (ICOMOS 1998). The State Party submitted a revised map with clarified boundaries and an extended buffer zone prior to the World Heritage Committee Session

(ICOMOS 1998); the revised boundaries are in place today (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005).

Legal Protection

Two sets of protections cover the entirety of the World Heritage site and its buffer zone, the city’s PLU and the protected surroundings of the many historic monuments

171

within the site (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions

gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f). The PLU is

the most comprehensive protection, regulating façade details based on district and

style, as well as delineating areas with high heritage value that have additional

protection (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales

responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f). Recently Lyon tested a new form

of regulation through its PLU, zones of heritage vigilance (zones de vigilance

patrimoniale); these zones lie outside the buffer zone, and reflect a desire on the part of

local stakeholders to protect the heritage of their city (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f). There are 174 historic monuments within the World Heritage site; 45 of these are classified historic monuments whose protected surroundings overlap to cover much of the World Heritage site, the buffer zone, and part of the area beyond

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f).

There is also a ZPPAUP for the Croix-Rousse hill that focuses on neighborhood revitalization and protection of heritage related to Lyon’s silk workers (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b); an AVAP has been prepared to replace the existing ZPPAUP and will go into effect in 2015 (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel

2014f). Lyon also has the oldest safeguarded sector in France, protecting Old Lyon

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f). Lyon also has protections for

172

archaeological remains, requiring salvage excavation as needed; excavations under these provisions have resulted in important discoveries and an enrichment of the understanding of the city’s history (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and

Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f)

Management and Monitoring

The World Heritage site and its buffer zone lie completely within the commune of

Lyon (Figure 10-11), although numerous other communes comprise the conurbation of

Greater Lyon (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). About 25% of the

World Heritage site is publicly owned and 75% is private property (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

The State of France and the City of Lyon have been working together since 2008 to create a new management plan specific to the needs of the World Heritage site; this plan was submitted to the World Heritage Centre in 2013 and is awaiting comment by the World Heritage Committee (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f). The current management plan has been in place since 2006, and is administered by a guidance committee comprised of the mayor of Lyon and assistants in the areas of cultural heritage, urban planning and sustainable development, and international affairs and tourism (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f). The guidance committee is responsible for promoting heritage and tourism, as well as protecting heritage while engaging in urban development (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f). Furthermore, the City of Lyon is responsible for promoting understanding of the built heritage,

173

administering the legal regulations related to protecting the built heritage, evaluating construction permits and projects that will impact heritage sites, and creating conventions as tools to improve local heritage sites, for example, the convention to offer courses on the city’s traboules (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f). The State

Party indicates that the city is monitored for factors related to management needs and understanding the site’s OUV, but does not specify which factors (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f).

Issues and Actions Taken

The original nomination mentioned no existing or potential threats to the World

Heritage site (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The only issue mentioned in the ICOMOS evaluation related to the clarification of boundaries and extension of the buffer zone (ICOMOS 1998), as discussed above. The 2014 periodic report indicated that there are currently no active threats to the site, although air pollution, terrorism, flooding, and landslides represent potential threats (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f). A recent analysis of air quality has shown a decrease in air pollution since the implementation of a policy to reduce vehicular traffic, there is a plan in place to reduce flood risk, and a national anti-terrorism plan

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014f). Culverts to help drain water and stabilize the slopes of the city’s two hills have been constructed from Roman times

174

through the present, and risk factors for landslides are being monitored (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b).

Discussion

The primary values of the World Heritage site include its historic urban fabric – individual structures, residential districts, and layout – and the traces of the evolution the city has undergone throughout its history from the Roman era through the nineteenth century. Potential threats mentioned by the State Party include terrorism, air pollution, flooding, and landslides. The State of France has already made an effort to address terrorism with a national plan; it seems unlikely that the buffer zone would play a specific role in this policy that would differ from actions taken within the World Heritage site or outside the buffer zone. Flooding and landslides are largely addressed through a system of culverts and monitoring; it seems reasonable that some of this activity might take place in the buffer zone or elsewhere along the two rivers, although given that flooding is a potential issue in any urban setting with a major river, World Heritage site or not, these are not issues that are likely to be specifically addressed by the buffer zone. In this case, air pollution has already been reduced through restrictions on vehicular traffic in the city; while the buffer zone could play a role either by further limiting vehicular traffic or by accommodating transit options or routes that bypass the city center, the small size of the buffer zone relative to the World Heritage site suggests that the buffer zone might be inadequate for such a role.

The original proposal for a buffer zone included several city blocks to the east of the Rhône River, likely an attempt to preserve the view along the river front. As this buffer zone was deemed insufficient prior to the site’s inscription, the State Party proposed a larger buffer zone that surrounds the entire World Heritage site, relying on

175

both the topography of the city and the age of the districts around the inscribed site to include structures of a similar scale of somewhat more recent age than those near the boundary. The surroundings of classified historic monuments cover the entire World

Heritage site and the buffer zone, although do not correspond with the buffer zone’s boundary. The commune of Lyon is protected by a PLU, although a substantial portion of the commune lies outside the buffer zone. There are no regulatory or administrative units that correspond specifically to the buffer zone, suggesting that the State Party fulfilled the ICOMOS request by selecting areas of the city that are closely related to the values of the World Heritage site but which do not encompass its OUV. While experts have discussed the possibility of buffer zones relating to the characteristics of the inscribed site, the Operational Guidelines emphasize other criteria for a buffer zone.

Lyon’s buffer zone may be superfluous given that its limited size appears to hamper any potential to protect the World Heritage site against likely threats. The strong protection provided by the city’s PLU covers the entire commune, and without being a designated district in the PLU, the buffer zone offers no additional protection. It is possible that designation of the buffer zone in the PLU would allow opportunities for placement of services that would be inappropriate within the inscribed site, or prevent tall or otherwise inappropriate development in close proximity to the historic center.

However, thanks to the protections of the PLU and surroundings of historic monuments, inappropriate development has not been identified as an issue in Lyon.

176

Figure 10-1. Historic Site of Lyons inscribed site and buffer zone. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2012) The dark orange area is the inscribed World Heritage site, and the yellow-orange area is the buffer zone.

177

Figure 10-2. Neighborhoods of Lyon. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b)

178

Figure 10-3. Era of buildings with the World Heritage site of Lyon. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b) Lavender areas are Roman structures, black areas are medieval structures, red areas are Renaissance structures, dark blue areas are seventeenth to eighteenth century structures, dark yellow areas are nineteenth century structures, and green areas are twentieth century structures.

179

Figure 10-4. View of Lyon from Fourvière Hill looking east. (Photo courtesy of author.)

Figure 10-5. Roman ruins on Fourvière Hill in Lyon. (Photo courtesy of author.)

180

Figure 10-6. Typical street in the Old Lyon district. (Photo courtesy of author.)

Figure 10-7. Bellecour Neighborhood in Lyon. (Photo courtesy of author.)

181

Figure 10-8. Rue de Cuire in the buffer zone, north of the World Heritage site. (Photo courtesy of author.)

Figure 10-9. Rue de Cuire outside the buffer zone north of the World Heritage site. (Photo courtesy of author.)

182

Figure 10-10. Proposal for buffer zone in the original nomination for Lyon. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b) The green area is the World Heritage site and the yellow-green area is the original buffer zone proposal.

183

Figure 10-11. The World Heritage site within the commune of Lyon. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b) The dark orange area is the World Heritage site and the black hatched area is the commune of Lyon.

184

CHAPTER 11 CASE STUDY V: PROVINS, TOWN OF MEDIEVAL FAIRS

Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs: General Site Description

The site Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs was inscribed on the World Heritage

List in 2001; this 108 ha site was inscribed with a buffer zone of 1,365 ha (Figure 11-1)

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015k). This site represents the urban and rural settlements/historic towns and villages typology, as well as military properties. Provins is a medieval settlement comprised of an Upper and Lower Town; the Upper Town is still surrounded by its medieval ramparts (Figure 11-2) (Ministère de la culture et de la

communication 2000). Provins was one of the seats of the Count of Champagne in the

Middle Ages, and was economically important for its wool industry and for hosting the

most prominent of the Champagne trade fairs(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015k).

Provins still has numerous urban structures and buildings specifically adapted to the

trade carried out here in the Middle Ages (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015k).

Economic stagnation from the fifteenth century onward left many of the town’s

medieval structures as well as its town plan intact, although it remains a living town

today (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). Still present are the Upper

Town’s ramparts, the market squares in the Upper and Lower Towns, and many

medieval structures related to commerce and the Champagne fairs1 (Ministère de la

1 According to the original nomination file of Provins, the Champagne fairs were a series of trade fairs held throughout the year in four towns within the Champagne region – Provins, Troyes, Lagny, and Bar- sur-Aube. Lagny held the first fair of the year from January 2nd through the mid-point of Lent. The next day marked the beginning of the fair in Bar-sur-Aube, which was followed by a fair in the Upper Town of Provins that began on the Tuesday before the Feast of the Ascension after Easter and lasted for 46 days. The Fair of St. John in Troyes began during the first half of July and lasted until September fourteenth, the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, which marked the beginning of the Fair of Saint Ayoul in the Lower Town of Provins. The Fair of Saint Ayoul ended on All Saints’ Day on November 1st, and the next day the “cold fair” of Troyes began, which would last until January 2nd. The seventh Champagne fair was held, concurrently with Troyes, in Provins during the month of December (2000).

185

culture et de la communication 2000). The ramparts demonstrate a wide variety of thirteenth century military architecture, having evolved over time to incorporate new techniques and military strategies (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

Although the year-round cycle of Champagne fairs included the towns of Troyes,

Lagny, and Bar-sur-Aube, Provins, as the seat of the Count of Champagne, was the primary fair town and hosted three of the seven fairs held each year (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). To accommodate these fairs, vaulted warehouses for storage and display of merchandise were constructed near the market squares (Figure 11-3) (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). These warehouses were found in either strictly commercial buildings or buildings that served a dual commercial and residential purpose, although in the latter, there was no internal connection between the dwelling and the warehouse (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). The warehouses made up the lowest level of buildings; in the

Upper Town, the warehouses were in the basement and were accessed by stairs leading directly from the street, while in the Lower Town they were constructed as the ground floor of the building due to the soft soil (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). This vaulted masonry construction was costly, but protected goods from the threat of fire, and many of the warehouses had decorative features indicative of their use as public display areas (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

The Lower Town was originally a marsh, and was systematically drained in order to accommodate construction of religious buildings, residences, cultivated plots, and commercial structures (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). Water

186

mills on the resulting channels were used for industrial purposes, while some of the waterways were used as sewers (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

Although the ramparts of the Lower Town were dismantled, much of the hydraulic network constructed to drain the marsh is still present (Figure 11-3) (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). The oldest still extant structure of the Lower

Town is the Saint Ayoul Church, founded to venerate the relics of Saint Ayoul, which drew pilgrims and encouraged trade beginning in the late tenth century (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

During the Middle Ages, Provins was also famous for its strictly regulated wool industry; although wool is no longer produced here, evidence of wool processing and cloth production can still be seen in the physical form of the town today (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). Related to the wool industry are the areas on the slope between the Upper and Lower Towns where clay was quarried for use in cleaning the wool; open areas just inside the ramparts where cloth was hung to dry and which are now urban gardens; and records of the trade association that organized fullers, who made wool felt, teaselers, who manipulated wool cloth using thistle implements, and weavers (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

Provins is still known today for its roses, the “Rose of Provins” being a variety descended from a type of rose plant brought back from the Crusades by Count Thibaut

IV, and traditionally used in a wide range of products including perfumes, medicines, and candies (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). The Latin name of this rose is Rosa gallica officinalis, and it is believed that the variety in Provins tends to be more red than those growing elsewhere due to the composition of the soil (Ministère

187

de la culture et de la communication 2000). The rose of Provins is also the red rose of the House of Lancaster, one of the two roses of the War of the Roses for the throne of

England in the fifteenth century (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

Outstanding Universal Value

Provins is a town related to international trade and the wool industry of the eleventh through fourteenth centuries, with the best-preserved examples of the specific architectural and urban forms related to the Champagne trade fairs (UNESCO World

Heritage Centre 2015k). Having developed from a ninth century fortified site into a fortified town, the Upper Town of Provins still has its twelfth century ramparts; the twelfth century Tower of Caesar; the market square with its merchants’ houses; and

Saint-Quiriace, a Romanesque-Gothic church constructed from the twelfth through the fourteenth centuries (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015k). The Lower Town developed around plots established by religious orders, and still has numerous examples of the twelfth and thirteenth century trade building type adapted for this part of the town, where underground construction was impossible (UNESCO World Heritage

Centre 2015k). The Lower Town also houses the remnants of the medieval Jewish quarter, as well as the quarries from which clay was gathered to be used in processing wool (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015k). The layout and structures of both the

Upper and Lower Towns are strongly linked to the Champagne trade fairs and supporting industries (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015k).

Inscription Criteria

The original nomination of the site proposed inscription on the basis of three criteria: (ii), (iii), and (iv) (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). ICOMOS recommended inscription on the basis of only criteria (ii) and (iv) (ICOMOS 2000), the

188

criteria under which the World Heritage Committee inscribed the site (UNESCO World

Heritage Committee 2001). The criteria included in the official declaration of OUV are identical to those proposed in the ICOMOS evaluation:

• (ii) In the early eleventh century, Provins was one of the towns that began to host the Champagne trade fairs that facilitated exchange between northern Europe and the Mediterranean region;

• (iv) both the architecture and town plan related to these medieval trade fairs are well-preserved at Provins (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015k).

The State Party submitted a revised declaration of OUV to the World Heritage

Committee in 2012, and is awaiting review of that declaration (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e). In the 2014 periodic report, the State Party described the inscription criteria in slightly different terms than the current official declaration of OUV; for criterion

(ii), the importance of Provins in terms of commercial and cultural exchange is emphasized, while for criterion (iv), descriptions of the specific architectural features of trade buildings, including the vaulted warehouses, are included (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e).

Authenticity and Integrity

Although the enclosure of the Lower Town was lost in the nineteenth century

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015k), the medieval perimeter of both the Upper and

Lower Towns remains intact, including the rampart of the Upper Town (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). The layout of the town is relatively unaltered, and only appropriate conservation work has been undertaken, with none of the inappropriate

189

restoration projects common in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries often found at other historic sites (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

Site Chronology: Basic History, Conservation Efforts, and World Heritage Activity

• 802: An ordinance issued by Charlemagne mentions Provins, indicating its status as an existing fort (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 804: A currency mint is established at Provins (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 845-865: Monks from Fleury-sur-Loire establish a small sanctuary and hide relics of Saint Ayoul in the marsh below Provins (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 983: Provins comes under the control of the Count of Champagne (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 996: The relics of Saint Ayoul are rediscovered, marking the beginning of pilgrimage (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 1019-1032: A chapter of clergy is established at Saint-Quiriace church (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 1048: Count Thibaut I establishes a Benedictine priory in honor of Saint Ayoul; the Lower Town will eventually develop around this priory (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• Eleventh century: The earliest association of Provins with trade fairs and wool cloth begins (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 1164: Count Henry the Liberal establishes a policy of safe conduct for merchants attending the trade fairs (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• Late twelfth to thirteenth centuries: Construction of the Church of Saint-Quiriace (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e).

• Thirteenth century: This period was the height of Provins’ prosperity; the city reached a population of about 10,000 inhabitants, housing merchants and artisans connected to wool cloth production, hide tanning, and cutlery production (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). This is the period during which most of the vaulted trade cellars were constructed, and during which the Lower Town was founded by channeling the water to drain the marsh (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

190

• 1227: Fransiscans establish a presence in the marsh below the Upper Town (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 1230: Provins is granted a communal charter, and Count Thibaut IV begins construction on the ramparts of the Upper Town (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 1240: Count Thibaut IV brings back a rose plant from the Crusades; this rose will become the “Rose of Provins.” (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000)

• 1242: Franciscans construct a monastery in the Lower Town (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 1248: The Order of Saint Clare, sometimes known as the Clarisses or the Poor Clares, establishes a convent in the Upper Town (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• Late thirteenth to fourteenth centuries: European exchange routes begin to change and Provins’ wool merchants experience increasing competition from the Flemish textile industry, marking the beginning of the city’s decline (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). It is during the fourteenth century that the commercial cultivation of the rose of Provins becomes important to the city (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 1279: The mayor of Provins is killed during a workers’ riot (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 1347: Half the city’s population is lost during an epidemic (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• Fourteenth to fifteenth centuries: Provins is occupied by the English several times during the Hundred Years’ War, which furthers its economic decline (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• Sixteenth century: Provins takes the side of the Catholic League during the French Wars of Religion, experiencing first siege and then subsequent drought, flooding, and plague that further reduce the city’s population and economic well- being (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• Seventeenth to eighteenth centuries: Provins becomes an administrative center and garrison; new construction occurs in the Lower Town, filling in cultivated plots (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). During this period, the north rampart of the Lower Town was demolished and replaced with a promenade, and ten bell towers were destroyed during the French Revolution (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

191

• 1840: The Church of Saint-Quiriace is listed as a monument (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e).

• 1846: The Tower of Caesar is listed as a monument (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e).

• 1862: Saint Ayoul Church is listed as a monument (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e).

• 1870: Provins is occupied by the Prussians during the Franco-Prussian War (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 1875: The ramparts of the Upper Town are listed as monuments (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e).

• Twentieth century: This period sees the first urbanization outside the ramparts, and Provins reaches a population of 10,000 again for the first time since the fourteenth century (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• World War I: The German army’s advance reaches within 15 km of Provins, but does not occupy the town (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• World War II: Provins is occupied by German troops (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 1986: Brie cheese, a traditional cheese of this region that has been sold as early as the trade fairs in the Middle Ages, receives its AOC2 designation, or designation of controlled origin (appellation d’origine contrôlé) (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 1990: A ZPPAUP is established for the Upper Town (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 1999: The major storm responsible for damaging numerous sites in France damages buildings at Provins (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

• 2000: A ZPPAUP is established for the Lower Town (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

2 AOC is a French guarantee of quality and origin that stipulates production criteria and geographic restrictions products must meet in order to be certified as genuine.

192

• 2001: Provins is inscribed on the World Heritage List with a buffer zone (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2001).

• 2004-2013: A convention between the French State and Provins was drawn up and executed to restore historic monuments, including work on rampart towers and the Saint Ayoul Church (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2012b).

Inscribed Site and Buffer Zone Boundaries and Characteristics

The entirety of the town that is within the perimeter of the medieval walls is the inscribed World Heritage site (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

Perched atop a plateau, the Upper Town is characterized by its extensive ramparts, monumental buildings such as the Tower of Caesar and Church of Saint-Quiriace, market square, and numerous buildings dating to the Middle Ages, many of which relate to the town’s role in the Champagne trade fairs. Its streets are narrow, vehicular traffic is restricted, and many of the houses still have small garden plots or roses growing on their walls (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). The Lower Town lies to the east of the Upper Town, at a much lower elevation and in an area that was once a marsh. The Lower Town has somewhat wider streets than the Upper Town, although vehicular traffic is still restricted on some streets; like the Upper Town, this area still features monumental structures from the Middle Ages, such as Saint Ayoul Church, as well as many medieval structures that were linked to the Champagne trade fairs. While many of these medieval structures are now residences, there are commercial areas in the Lower Town whose storefronts were updated in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Figure 11-3) (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). The ramparts of the Lower Town were dismantled, but a water feature still rings this entire portion of the town, and smaller waterways still run through the Lower Town. Many

193

buildings in the Upper and Lower Town are masonry, although there are also numerous timber frame structures, including some with a masonry ground floor.

The boundary of the buffer zone corresponds with the boundary of the commune of Provins (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). The buffer zone encompasses the Plain of Brie, with its agricultural land (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e), as well as modern urban areas constructed around the Lower Town from the twentieth century onward. Since the twentieth century, there has been some expansion of the town of Provins beyond the medieval ramparts, so the urbanized area of the buffer zone is characterized by wider roads, deeper setbacks from the roads, and buildings of significantly later styles than within the World Heritage site (Figure 11-4).

Given its location on a plateau, the Upper Town is visible from many parts of the buffer zone (Figure 11-4). The ramparts of the Upper Town are primarily surrounded by agricultural land and lightly forested areas, although some modern urbanized areas are visible in the distance from atop the ramparts (Figure 11-5).

The World Heritage site and buffer zone together correspond with the boundaries of the commune of Provins, which lies in the department of Seine-et-Marne in the region of Ile-de-France (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). As per the 2014 periodic report, the boundaries of the World Heritage site and its buffer zone are considered adequate and are both known to local stakeholders and authorities

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e).

194

Legal Protection

Within the boundary of the World Heritage site are 12 buildings that have been designated as classified historic monuments under the status of the Heritage Act of

1913; each of these is also protected by the standard 500 m radius surroundings of a historic monument (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e). There are also 41 registered historic monuments under the status of the Heritage Act of 1913

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e). A guide on treatment of storefronts in the Lower Town includes provisions on window dimensions, façade layout, signs, and awnings; this guide applies to the eighteenth through twentieth century storefronts in an attempt to harmonize them with the surrounding medieval buildings, and states that all work must be approved by the town hall (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e; Ministère de la culture et de la communication

2000). There are currently two ZPPAUPs, one for the Upper and one for the Lower

Town, and both of which extend into the surrounding buffer zone; like all ZPPAUPs, these zones are due to expire in 2015 (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and

Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e), and it is unknown whether or not the mayor will convert them into AVAPs.

The rural portion of the buffer zone is protected by agricultural regulations limiting activities as well as building heights, and requires buildings to be screened by vegetation (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e); the rural area around the Upper

195

Town and its ramparts is also protected as a classified heritage site under the status of the Heritage Act of 1930 (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). Within the buffer zone is also one registered historic monument under the status of the Heritage Act of 1930, a monastery related to the OUV of the World Heritage site, but outside the ramparts of the medieval town

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

Management and Monitoring

Most of the World Heritage site is comprised of privately owned property; there are also portions belonging to the commune of Provins and the State (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). 13 of the historic monuments belong to the commune of Provins, 3 are jointly owned by Provins and either the State or private individuals, and the remainder are privately owned (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). A number of private buildings are subject to agreement with the commune to coordinate management and conservation (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

The Town of Provins has a manager to direct its spatial planning documents, which cover both the World Heritage site and its buffer zone (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). There is also an Office of Tourism, which is responsible for managing tourism and interpretation, including the large medieval fair held in Provins every June in honor of the town’s trade history (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000).

196

Issues and Actions Taken

In 2009, two French organizations notified the World Heritage Centre that changes were being made to the ZPPAUPs of the Upper and Lower Towns (UNESCO

World Heritage Committee 2010c). The mayor of Provins allowed revisions to the

ZPPAUPS to allow two construction projects within areas that had previously been designated as non-constructible, both within the buffer zone and one near the ramparts that would include a brickwork company (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2010c).

These projects also included a plan to remove a portion of the forest that visually protects the World Heritage site in order to accommodate construction of access roads between a new housing development and the existing town (UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 2010c). The prefect allowed the revision to the ZPPAUPS, in spite of being advised by two heritage officials that this would negatively impact the site (UNESCO

World Heritage Committee 2010c). The World Heritage Committee reminded the State

Party that the ZPPAUPs were discussed in the original nomination file as “measures guaranteeing the protection and management of the property and its immediate area” and formally requested a report including impact studies be submitted by 2012

(UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2010c:Current Conservation Issues - c). In 2012, the State Party submitted its report, explaining that the French State has no authority regarding the ZPPAUP, which falls under the jurisdiction of the commune (UNESCO

World Heritage Committee 2012b). However, the State Party also explained that the

2008 PLU of Provins, which would have allowed revisions to land use in compliance with the changes to the ZPPAUP, was cancelled by a tribunal in 2011 (UNESCO World

Heritage Committee 2012b). In addition, the ZPPAUPs are set to expire in 2015, with the option to create an AVAP to replace them; if the mayor declines to create an AVAP,

197

protection will once again fall under the status of surroundings of historic monuments

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e; UNESCO World Heritage

Committee 2012b). In the 2014 periodic report, the State Party indicated that the proposed projects had been abandoned, and expansion of existing residential complexes is currently forbidden (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and

Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e).

In 2011, the World Heritage Centre also learned about two proposed wind turbine projects, one 9 km from Provins in the department of Seine-et-Marne and the other

15km from Provins in the department of Aube (UNESCO World Heritage Committee

2012b). The prefects of both departments rejected these proposals (UNESCO World

Heritage Committee 2012b).

The 2014 periodic report suggests that, while the number of tourists to the site is increasing, it does not pose a risk (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and

Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e).

Since 2013, the commune has also been acquiring modern structures near the ramparts in order to demolish them to protect the ramparts’ surroundings (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014e).

Discussion

The primary values of the World Heritage site include its medieval military, trade, religious, and residential architecture, and its historical role the Champagne fairs and international commerce. The primary external threat to the site is inappropriate development near the medieval town and its boundaries. It is also possible that changes

198

to its hydrological system could impact the buildings and channels of the Lower Town.

Although not mentioned in either the original nomination or the 2014 periodic report, it seems likely that flooding could be an issue for the Lower Town, given that the Durteint and Voulzie Rivers flow through and beside the Lower Town, respectively (Figure 11-6).

Provins is most likely to be negatively impacted by inappropriate development in its immediate setting. Unlike other sites whose remoteness and significant viewsheds play an important role in their OUV, distant development, even of tall structures, will have a relatively minor impact on perception of the site and its values – this was a center of trade and gathering, not an isolated site. In spite of this, it is still worrisome that the mayor has recently made moves to allow large-scale construction adjacent to the World Heritage site, particularly given that the ZPPAUP offering protection within the buffer zone may not be converted to an AVAP and the surroundings of historic monuments would still allow new projects close to the edge of the World Heritage site, particularly the Lower Town. The current boundary of the buffer zone corresponds with the boundary of the commune, and seems reasonable in terms of areas where development is most likely to impact the site. However, stronger legal protections for the entire area within the buffer zone should be considered, perhaps by creating an AVAP to replace the ZPPAUPs as well as the urbanized areas of the commune that are outside the existing ZPPAUP.

Water courses and channels in the World Heritage site and buffer zone should also be monitored for changes. There is also an opportunity for the creation of hydraulic works that might help protect the Lower Town in the case of flooding, targeting

199

appropriate areas in the buffer zone in order to leave the channels within the World

Heritage site unaltered.

200

Figure 11-1. Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs inscribed site and buffer zone. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2011c) The dark orange area is the inscribed World Heritage site, and the yellow-orange area is the buffer zone.

201

Figure 11-2. Monuments of the Upper Town of Provins. A) Western ramparts of the Upper Town of Provins. (Photo courtesy of author.) B) Southwestern ramparts of the Upper Town of Provins on a typical day. (Photo courtesy of author.) C) Southwestern ramparts of the Upper Town of Provins – tourists and vendors during the annual medieval fair. (Photo courtesy of author.) D) Tower of Caesar in the Upper Town of Provins. (Photo courtesy of author.)

202

Figure 11-3. Features of the inscribed World Heritage site of Provins. A) Vaulted basement in the Upper Town of Provins. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000) B) Vaulted basement in the Upper Town of Provins. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000) C) Storefronts in the Lower Town of Provins. (Photo courtesy of author.) D) Hydraulic system in the Lower Town of Provins. (Photo courtesy of author.)

203

Figure 11-4. The buffer zone of the World Heritage site Provins. A) Buffer zone north of the inscribed site of Provins. (Photo courtesy of author.) B) Buffer zone east of the inscribed site of Provins. (Photo courtesy of author.) C) View looking south from the buffer zone toward the Upper Town of Provins. (Photo courtesy of author.)

204

Figure 11-5. View from the ramparts of the Upper Town looking north toward the buffer zone. (Photo courtesy of author.)

Figure 11-6. The Voulzie River flowing just outside the edge of the Lower Town of Provins. (Photo courtesy of author.)

205

CHAPTER 12 CASE STUDY VI: THE CAUSSES AND THE CÉVENNES, MEDITERRANEAN AGRO- PASTORAL CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape: General Site Description

The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural

Landscape was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2011; this 302,319 ha site was inscribed with a buffer zone of 312,425 ha (Figure 12-1) (UNESCO World Heritage

Centre 2015c). This site represents vernacular architecture; agricultural, industrial, and technological properties; and the cultural landscapes, parks and gardens typologies.

This cultural landscape is located in a mountainous terrain punctuated by deep valleys and has been the setting of agro-pastoral activity for over three thousand years

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015c).

The two principal areas within the World Heritage site are the Causses on the west, a region of steppe-like meadows on plateaus separated by deep gorges, and the more mountainous Cévennes to the east, an area of forested slopes and high altitude peaks (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). There are three basic categories of vernacular dwellings, each linked to conditions and available materials in the zones in which they are found (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

Typically, vernacular houses are either isolated farms or small hamlets; the largest village within the site has less than 2,000 inhabitants (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Many of the typical structures and landscape features relate to transhumance, the seasonal movement of livestock between highland and lowland pastures (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Traditional human-

206

made features related to transhumance include drailles1, the pathways used by shepherds to lead the flocks through the mountains; bridges along the drailles; montjoies, piled stones to mark paths, in the case of this site drailles; calades, stone structures used to ensure stability of the drailles; dry stone wolf pits to help protect flocks in narrow mountain passes; and tended ponds used as watering spots (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Other structures related to pastoralism in the region are cazelles, small buildings of stacked dry stone built by shepherds for protection from the elements; stone enclosures used as sheep pens; numerous chapels and votive crosses dedicated to saints related to herding; and bell towers with the nickname of “tourmente,” meaning “tempest” and whose bells were used to guide shepherds and travelers to safety when they might become lost in bad storms or thick fog (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Other structures and features are related to agriculture, such as boundary markers for agricultural land; sinkholes used for cultivation; terraces on the slopes to allow cultivation and prevent erosion; and numerous hydrological improvements, including dams, canals with features to slow water during downpours, cisterns, and horizontal wells to access water on the slopes

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

The cultural landscape is also home to intangible heritage and numerous traditional products. Traditional remedies were prepared using common broom (Cytisus scoparius) as a diuretic and for heart problems, and prickly juniper (Juniperus oxycerus) as a medical anti-sceptic for humans and animals (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Spanish gorse (Genista hispanica) produced a fiber woven into

1 Many of the built features have specific names only in Occitan, the traditional language of this region.

207

cloth to make a traditional garment shepherds wore while working, although fabrication

of these garments ended in 1950 (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

Boxwood (Buxus sempervirens) and Mediterranean hackberry (Celtis australis) are still

used today to craft traditional sheep collars (Ministère de la culture et de la

communication 2011). Variolite, a type of green stone, was used to create charms worn

by sheep and believed to ward off sheep pox and other skin maladies (Ministère de la

culture et de la communication 2011). The tradition of “nights of manuring” (les nuits de

fumature) began in the Middle Ages, and was a practice whereby highland communities

contracted with shepherds to pen their sheep on agricultural land, moving them

between penned plots at night according to a strict schedule in order to fertilize

otherwise poor soil; this practice died out in the twentieth century with the use of cow

manure and commercial fertilizers (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

2011). There are five heritage varieties of livestock still raised in the region, Lacaune

sheep, Raïole sheep, Caussenard des Garrigues sheep, Blanc du Massif Central

sheep, and Aubrac cows; the Lacaune sheep and their cross-breeds are the source of

the IGP2 certified lamb of Aveyron, the Blanc du Massif Central sheep are the source of

the IGP certified lamb of Lozère, and Lacaune ewes are the source of milk for the AOC

and AOP certified Roquefort cheese (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

2011).

This is a cultural landscape that has evolved over three millennia, and will

undoubtedly continue to do so in the future based on economic demands, national or

international agricultural policy, and changes to the physical setting (Ministère de la

2 IGP, AOP, and AOC are European and French guarantees of quality and origin; they stipulate production criteria and geographic restrictions the products must meet in order to be certified as genuine.

208

culture et de la communication 2011). Traditional practices continue to shape the landscape, for example, the maintenance of open spaces that provide habitat for wildlife or the preservation of piled stones cleared from agricultural fields that provide shelter for owls and other birds (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Regional authorities continue to promote agro-pastoral activities in the region, including the revitalization of dwindling pastoral activities and the historic relationships between wildlife and human systems, for example, the reintroduction of vulture species that traditionally fed on the abandoned carcasses of sheep (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). This is a valued space, and is among the last and largest remaining examples of agro-pastoralism in this part of the Mediterranean (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

Outstanding Universal Value

This cultural landscape is set in a terrain of mountains punctuated by deep valleys (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015c). The region is characterized by a traditional agro-pastoral lifeway, marked by villages, routes between pastures, agricultural areas, and related structures (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015c).

Agro-pastoralism has been practiced here for over three thousand years, although many of the practices and landscape features seen today evolved in the Middle Ages in response to the development of religious institutions and nearby Mediterranean cities

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015c). Within the region are examples of pastoralism blended with cultivation; pastoralism blended with silviculture; sedentary pastoralism; and summer transhumance (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015c). This site is significant for the traces of evolution of the landscape over the millennia, as well as its living features and intangible heritage (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015c).

209

Inscription Criteria

The State Party proposed inscription of this site on the basis of criteria (iii) and

(v) (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011); ICOMOS did not recommend inscription at the time of nomination (ICOMOS 2011), as discussed below. The World

Heritage Committee inscribed the site on the basis of criteria (iii) and (v), with the following description included in the official declaration of OUV:

• (iii) This cultural landscape is a living tradition that is “an outstanding example of one type of Mediterranean agro-pastoralism… based on local breeds of sheep” tended in a system encompassing agricultural and settlement patterns, management of water resources, and patterns of fields and pastures linked by drailles;

• (v) this site is an excellent representative of the Mediterranean agro-pastoralism that developed in southwestern Europe, having evolved throughout its history (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015c:Brief Synthesis).

Authenticity and Integrity

Many of the physical remains of this evolving landscape are still present, including waterways, terraces, walls, and other buildings, although many of these are in need of repair (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015c). The agro-pastoral activities that shaped this landscape still exists, but these practices are considered vulnerable and in some areas nearly relict (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015c). Currently there are less than a hundred farmers, only a few shepherds are practicing transhumance, and only a small portion of the terraces and waterways are being maintained (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015c). Local communities and government authorities are working together to encourage the revitalization of agro- pastoral practices in this region (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015c), in spite of recent decline (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014b).

210

Site Chronology: Basic History, Conservation Efforts, and World Heritage Activity

• Neolithic Period: The earliest evidence of pastoralism in this region dates to the Neolithic period from about 7,000 to 4,000 BP (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). In the Causses, sheep breeding occurred around water courses and sinkholes, as well as at the edges of plateaus, while wooded areas were used primarily for hunting; visible remains from this era exist in the landscape today, including dolmens and tumuli – megalithic tombs and burial mounds (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). In the Cévennes, most archaeological sites from this era relate to tending flocks, and there is evidence that the earliest drailles were first formed during the Neolithic; menhirs, or standing stones, from this era still exist today (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

• Iron Age: The area was occupied by Celtic peoples who likely made few alterations to the pastoral activities practiced here (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Population density in the region increased, and there are archaeological examples of fortified sites from this era (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Local tradition suggests that two of the major trade routes, the cliff road of the Cévennes and the Régourdane path, were established during this period, as trade in wine and salt criss-crossed trade in minerals and dairy products (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

• Roman Conquest: The Causses and the Cévennes were held by the Romans, although there was minimal impact on the pastoral practices of the region (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

• Middle Ages: This period marks the development of agro-pastoral activities and the shaping of the landscape into the form it takes today (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Much of the transformation of the landscape and economy of the region was due to the spreading influence of Christianity and the influx of monastic groups; monks participated in breeding sheep and in transhumance, and cultural features of the landscape were shaped as cultivation and flock tending became geographically widespread (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

• Ninth century: Religious and secular leaders began charging fees for the passage of flocks throughout the region (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

• Tenth century: Beginning of construction of terraces for grain cultivation, and chestnuts were being heavily exploited (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

211

• Twelfth century: The monastic establishments ceded their rights to the Templars, who increased both pastoral and agricultural exploitation as well as exercised control over water sources (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

• Fourteenth century: The Templars gave way to the Hospitallers, who continued the same practices as the Templars had, increasing production of wool, milk, cheese, and sheepskin, although a climatic shift marked by lower temperatures limited the altitude at which chestnuts could grow (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Fortification of villages at this time may have been due to the Black Death or as a response to competition from the Hospitallers (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

• Sixteenth – eighteenth centuries: This was an era of economic prosperity in the region due to outside trade, initially of chestnut products, then sheep products, and finally silk (ICOMOS 2011).

• Nineteenth to early twentieth centuries: Silkworm disease caused the collapse of the silk industry, and general economic decline lead to a sharp decrease in population; the region’s isolation contributed to the late introduction of modern agricultural practices (ICOMOS 2011; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

• Mid- to late-twentieth centuries: This period was marked by an increasing commercialization of ewes’ milk production to make Roquefort cheese, as well as a decrease in the number of small-scale producers and an increase in mechanization (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Support of cheese production also altered the landscape, converting cultivated land and wooded areas into pasture (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

• Twenty-first century: From 2005 to 2006 was the first nomination of the site to the World Heritage List; ICOMOS recommended deferral3, and the World Heritage Committee referred the nomination back to the State Party for revision (ICOMOS 2011). In 2009, the State Party nominated the site again; ICOMOS recommended deferral, and the World Heritage Committee referred the nomination back to the State Party for revision (ICOMOS 2011). In 2011, the State Party nominated the site a final time; ICOMOS recommended referral, and the World Heritage Committee inscribed the site (ICOMOS 2011).

Inscribed Site and Buffer Zone Boundaries and Characteristics

The boundary of the World Heritage site was determined by first identifying the

features traditionally associated with agro-pastoralism in this region, for instance,

3 Referral of a nomination allows a State Party to resubmit the nomination within the next three years without it being considered a new nomination; deferral is a request for addition of in-depth information about the site, and submission will be considered a new nomination. (Appendix A)

212

geological features and cultural elements like flock routes and summer pastures, and

then using this information to delineate the area characterized by these features

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The buffer zone encompasses all

communes that are partially within the World Heritage site as well as all communes

adjacent to the World Heritage site, including the four towns Alès, Ganges, Millau, and

Mende that function as entry points to the site (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The inscribed World Heritage site and its buffer zone fall within two regions, Languedoc-Rouissillon and Midi-Pyrénées, four departments within those regions, and 125 communes (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). In

the 2014 periodic report, France stated that the boundary of the World Heritage site is

adequate, but that the boundary of the buffer zone was in need of improvement

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales

responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014b). The report also indicated that site

managers are aware of the boundaries of both the World Heritage site and the buffer

zone, but that local stakeholders are not (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and

Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014b).

The inscribed site and buffer zone have similar geographical features (Figure 12-

2), although the inscribed site is characterized by slightly different habitat features as

well as a much denser concentration of the cultural attributes related to agro-

pastoralism (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The inscribed site

includes three major geological zones, as well as a number of smaller habitats scattered

throughout the region; the major zones are the Causses, the high Cévennes, and the

lower Cévennes (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011), as described

213

below. The buffer zone encompasses the portion of the Causses and Cévennes that lie outside the World Heritage site, roughly following the border between these regions and the surrounding landscapes. East and south of the Cévennes lies the Plain of

Languedoc, where the sheep that spend the summers in the high altitude pastures of the mountains are brought to spend the winter (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The southern edge of the buffer zone lies just beyond the

Causse of Larzac (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The northern area of the buffer zone reaches the edge of the Central Massif, encompassing the northern portions of both the Causses and the Cévennes (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The original nomination suggests that there is no natural boundary on the west, although much of what lies inside the World Heritage site is comprised of “denuded” plateaus and much of what lies inside the buffer zone is forested plateaus (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

The Causses are limestone plateaus with deep gorges between them (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The “denuded” plateaus lack forests due to agro-pastoral activity over the millennia and are characterized by steppe-like meadows used for pasture punctuated by sinkholes used for cultivation; the forested plateaus are covered primarily in downy oaks (Quercus pubescens) (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The climate in the southwestern Causses is considered

Mediterranean, while the northeastern Causses are considered to have a continental climate (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The vernacular domestic architecture of this area is constructed of whitewashed limestone; the ground floor is used to shelter livestock so that heat rises to the floor of human habitation directly

214

above, the attic is used for storage or temporary housing for shepherds, and the roof is a combination of stone tiles and packed earth that provides insulation (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The lack of large trees in the “denuded” plateaus has led to a reliance on stone for construction, both in houses and in the small cazelle structures built by shepherds; for this reason, the architecture in this area is also typified by the extensive use of stone arches (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

2011). Water is scarce in this area, so stone construction reduces fire risk, traditional houses each have a cistern and well, and managed ponds are also common (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

Mount Lozère and Mount Aigoual are the two granite outcroppings that comprise the high Cévennes, and their summits are characterized by open summer pasture, poor soils, violent weather, and heavy precipitation (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The vernacular domestic architecture at high altitudes is constructed of granite, both due to its availability and the need for durability in such a harsh environment (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Traditionally, the homes were narrow and built into the slope of the mountain in order to minimize the amount of land used for dwellings; this pattern of construction has persisted until relatively recently (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The tourmentes are typical of these areas, in particular Mount Lozère (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

The third general zone comprises the lower Cévennes, the slopes and narrow valleys at an altitude below 1000 m (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

2011). Uncultivated areas of the slopes are typically covered in groves of holly oak

215

(Quercus ilex), heather (Erica arborea), or plantations of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster)

established in the nineteenth century (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

2011). However, the slopes are often extensively terraced for cultivation of grains on

south-facing slopes or chestnuts and mulberry trees on north-facing slopes; traditional

hydraulic works still irrigate the chestnut groves in many areas (Ministère de la culture

et de la communication 2011). The vernacular domestic architecture on the lower

slopes and in the valleys has interior components of chestnut wood and exterior walls

constructed of schist, a type of stone similar to slate and common in the valleys

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Houses are often isolated, but

are sometimes found in hamlets of as many as ten houses and are sited to best exploit

available arable land (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

In addition to the summer pasture and heather in the Cévennes, there are

several other categories of open spaces in the Causses and Cévennes, some

specifically linked to agro-pastoral activities (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Low valley bottoms are often characterized by juniper or boxwood shrubs (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). When areas are

abandoned as pasture or cultivated land, different flora re-colonize depending on soil

type and altitude. Common broom is tolerant of cold, dry conditions, and tends to grow

above 600 m in areas with silica-heavy soils; this plant is an important source of

nitrogen to enrich the soil (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

Lowland areas may be re-colonized with thyme and grasses that provide good fodder

for sheep, or with wild roses and brambles (Ministère de la culture et de la

communication 2011).

216

Legal Protection

The legal safeguards for this site consists of overlapping zones and protective measures that cover various portions of the inscribed site and the buffer zone. The strongest protection for the significant features is the National Park of the Cévennes, which protects both cultural and natural elements of the landscape in 117 communes

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014b). The core zone of the National

Park is surrounded by a support area, although this area has no regulatory restrictions; instead, it is an area designated for improvements related to tourism and sustainable development (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The National Park covers only a portion of the inscribed site, and outside the park’s boundaries the existing restrictions on construction are not as stringent as those of the park

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014b).

Other protections for various portions of the inscribed site and the buffer zone include the Regional Nature Park of the Causses, numerous classified and registered historic monuments, several classified and registered heritage sites, and ZPPAUPs in five communes (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014b; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). There are also two Operation Grand Sites within the World Heritage site and its buffer zones; these are designated areas where local and federal authorities work in partnership with local communities to undertake projects and encourage policies that promote sustainable development and tourism (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The State Party recognizes the fragmented

217

nature of these regulatory protections, and is working on coordinating protective measures for the entire site by 2015 (ICOMOS 2011).

In addition to regulatory protections, there are also various agencies and designated zones whose purposes range from compiling inventories of natural or cultural resources to encouraging sustainable development (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The most important of these is the Permanent Center of

Initiatives for the Environment (Centre permanent d’initiatives pour l’environnement –

CPIE), which is the agency that coordinates the groups involved in managing the

Causse of Larzac Natura 2000 area; Natura 2000 is a network of European Union areas designated for their biodiversity and focusing on protecting that biodiversity, while allowing managed human activity within designated areas. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). There are also several products produced in the region that have AOC, AOP, or IGP certification, for instance, Roquefort cheese, with corresponding regulations for economic recognition (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

Management and Monitoring

This site is managed by numerous agencies, most of them related specifically to natural heritage; recognizing the need to coordinate these management efforts, as well as to include input from local stakeholders, the State Party has created a management plan dividing responsibilities into three realms (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The first is the territorial conference, a body comprised of representatives of all levels of government as well as the many smaller subunits within the larger property; the territorial conference is the decision-making body and is also responsible for creating management guidelines (Ministère de la culture et de la

218

communication 2011). The second is the guidance committee, whose purpose is to gather opinions from local stakeholders, then propose projects and policy (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The third is the technical mission, which is the body responsible for implementing the plans of the territorial conference and for working with local administrators throughout the site (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). In its evaluation of the 2011 nomination, ICOMOS notes that although the administrators of the National Park of the Cévennes, the Regional Nature

Park of the Causses, and the CPIE collaborate, “they have limited power on land use and even cultural heritage conservation, most of the land being private property.”

(ICOMOS 2011:44)

In the 2014 periodic report, the State Party suggested that there is no site-wide monitoring occurring within either the inscribed site or its buffer zone, but that monitoring is necessary (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014b). The National

Park of the Cévennes engages in monitoring of its park, while the Regional Nature Park of the Causses uses a GIS system to track features of its park (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Of particular interest to these two sites are indicators tracking agro-pastoral activities, such as the number and distribution of farms or the number of livestock; tracking public financial expenditures on maintenance and restoration projects; tallying tourist visits, particularly use of the drailles; keeping demographic data; and monitoring biodiversity and other landscape features (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

219

Issues and Actions Taken

The State Party nominated the Causses and Cévennes three times before the site was inscribed on the World Heritage List. In 2005, ICOMOS and IUCN conducted an expert mission to evaluate the first nomination (ICOMOS 2011). ICOMOS noted that the proposed area was quite large and that the State Party had not sufficiently explained how the diverse zones and traditional practices related to one another to form a region with a unified OUV (ICOMOS 2011). ICOMOS recommended that the nomination be deferred, in order “to allow the State Party to consider further the qualities of the property;” (ICOMOS 2011:34) the World Heritage Committee referred the property back to the State Party (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2006b).

The State Party submitted the nomination again in 2009, and ICOMOS considered the new nomination to have an improved explanation of how the different practices related to one another to form a cohesive agro-pastoral landscape (ICOMOS

2011). However, ICOMOS again recommended deferral of the property, requesting a revision to the nomination that would emphasize the site’s agro-pastoralist nature and include a “detailed inventory of the attributes of the property that relate to agro- pastoralism,” which would allow evaluation of the site’s boundary and management strategies (ICOMOS 2011:34). The World Heritage Committee chose to refer the property back to the State Party, including a request to address the concerns raised in the ICOMOS evaluation (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2009a).

After the third submission in 2011, the World Heritage Committee chose to inscribe the Causses and Cévennes (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2011a). The

State Party had adjusted the boundaries of the proposed World Heritage site, having performed field surveys to examine the properties of the region and deciding to reduce

220

the proposed site’s overall size (ICOMOS 2011). ICOMOS agreed with the State Party’s justification of the site’s OUV and selection of criteria, suggested that the legal protection and management system for the site needed improvement, and overall commended the State Party’s work in revising the nomination; however, ICOMOS recommended that the nomination be referred in order to allow an expert mission to examine the redrawn boundaries and other aspects of the site in person (ICOMOS

2011).

The State Party also identified a number of possible threats to the site’s OUV in the 2011 nomination file. The main threats identified relate to the decrease in agro- pastoral activity in the region. This decrease has contributed to afforestation of areas that were traditionally kept open through agro-pastoral activities; these areas make up

22.5% of the land area of the site but harbor 90% of its species (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The State Party is hopeful that efforts to revive both agro-pastoral activities and tending of chestnut orchards will reduce the impact of afforestation (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Another threat related to the current low levels of agro-pastoralism is the potential loss of traditional structures, such as agricultural walls or features used to manage water courses

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Local communities are currently working to create planning policies that will give preference to the needs of agro- pastoralism over hunting and tourism (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

2011).

External economic forces also pose a threat to the practices of the region. For example, the State Party is concerned that fluctuating prices of products such as mutton

221

may negatively impact the area (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

In the Causses, the production of Roquefort cheese relies upon both sheep herding by locals but also on the large companies that purchase the ewes’ milk to make the cheese, companies whose owners are not local to the region (ICOMOS 2011). One form of pastoralism still practiced in the region also relies on moving flocks seasonally between the Causses, within the World Heritage site, and the Plain of Languedoc, which lies outside the site and the existing buffer zone (ICOMOS 2011).

There is some demand for non-traditional residential construction in the region, although both the National Park of the Cévennes and the Regional Nature Park of the

Causses support the protection of traditional vernacular structures (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The State Party has also indicated that there is pressure to construct wind farms and solar fields in regions of France with low population density, and has proposed a ban on both of these practices within the World

Heritage site as well as the need to carefully examine any requests for either within the buffer zone (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

There is some risk to the region from natural disasters. In the Causses, limestone erosion can lead to rock falls, while the schistic areas of the Cévennes are prone to mudslides; the State Party does not consider these a threat to the sites’ OUV so much as a potential danger for humans that can be mitigated by mapping hazardous areas to be avoided (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The violent thunderstorms typical of late summer pose a flood threat, which was exacerbated by deforestation in the nineteenth century; the replanting of chestnut forests in certain areas of the Cévennes has significantly reduced this threat (Ministère de la culture et de

222

la communication 2011). This was not traditionally an area prone to forest fires, but the

growth of resinous vegetation has increased the risk; indeed, there was a forest fire that

reached the Causses in 2003 (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011).

The Conservatory of the Mediterranean Forest (Conservatoire de la forêt méditerranéenne) has been working to reduce the risk of wild fire in the region

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011), and clearing afforested areas

may also aid in protecting against fire.

Discussion

The primary values related to the World Heritage site include the region’s agro-

pastoral traditions and the physical natural and cultural features that relate to these

activities. While there are concerns regarding conservation of traditional structures

within the World Heritage site, it seems unlikely that the buffer zone will have an impact

in this regard. The State Party also identified possible external threats due to economic

demands and changing agricultural laws, although in most cases, these, too, fall outside

the scope of protection a buffer zone can offer.

One external economic link that should, however, be considered is the role played by the Plain of Languedoc in the system of transhumance in the Cévennes. Not only do many of the region’s sheep spend the winter in this area, but this regional movement played a role in the traditional “nights of manuring” in the Cévennes

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). While the Plain of Languedoc may not be characterized by the same cultural landscape features as the Cévennes, it is certainly part of the system of transhumance, and would severely impact this system if there were changes to land use patterns or access. A possible solution would be to include this wintering-over area in the site’s buffer zone.

223

The increased afforestation has also caused concern on the part of the State

Party that forest fires could become more of a problem in the World Heritage site.

Careful forest and land management within the inscribed site may prove helpful, but the same is certainly true for the buffer zone, which encompasses a significant area of forested Causses. Policy within the buffer zone should include measures to manage afforestation, but should also consider fire breaks.

The State Party already intends to exclude wind turbines from the World Heritage site and to require strict evaluation of any proposals for wind turbines within the buffer zone (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Given that the Causses and

Cévennes represent a living and evolving cultural landscape, and the site was inscribed due to values related to its agricultural and pastoral features rather than for its isolation or aesthetics, wind turbines may not present a pressing threat in such an environment.

It is possible that wind farms could allow use of marginal land and bring new funds that might promote programs to help revitalize agro-pastoral activities in the area or help locals retain and stay on their land. If such an approach were to be considered, a careful evaluation must be first undertaken to identify appropriate locations, a limit on the overall number of turbines and wind farms to prevent overwhelming the landscape, a clear plan for use of funds, and an analysis of the potential impact on other development that wind farms might engender.

Finally, the most significant threat faced by the World Heritage site is the lack of fully coordinated protective measures. The State Party has indicated that it will implement a management plan, but the protective measures are both varied and incomplete – there are areas within both the World Heritage site and the buffer zone

224

that have no specific legal protections in terms of development or land use. For such a vast site, it seems unnecessary that there is a single legal protection that encompasses the entire area, but there must be protection in some form, and it must be coordinated.

This should be paired with monitoring, particularly of agro-pastoral activities and landscape features, to ensure that whatever legal protections are in place are effective.

225

Figure 12-1. Map of the Causses and Cévennes inscribed site and buffer zone. (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011) The red line is the boundary of the World Heritage site and the grey line is the boundary of the buffer zone.

226

Figure 12-2. Map of the geographic areas of the Causses and Cévennes (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). This map was adapted from a map in the original nomination file to include a legend in English.

227

CHAPTER 13 ANALYSIS OF FRENCH CASE STUDIES

This chapter examines the threats and issues at each site, management

strategies, and the general legal framework for protecting French World Heritage sites,

comparing the six cases. Each case is characterized by a unique set of values,

conditions, and threats, requiring different approaches to protect the OUV of each

inscribed site. This overall comparison allows an analysis of how similar threats and

conditions impact each site, and how different approaches are necessary for protection.

Threats and Issues

Visual Setting and Development

At the six French sites under study, like many cases in the literature described in

chapter 3, one of the most common threats linked to buffer zones is visual impact on the

World Heritage site and its setting, specifically due to urban development or

construction of wind turbines. Certainly a buffer zone is useful in these instances,

provided its boundaries are sufficient to encompass the area where development could

impact the site’s setting and there are regulations that can be enforced to prevent

inappropriate development. Of the six sites, Mont-Saint-Michel has been impacted the

most directly through the construction of wind turbines, revealing a weakness in its

buffer zone, which, although sizeable geographically speaking (57,510 ha), has proven

too small to prevent wind farms that are visible from the Mont (Castel-Branco and

Sorosh-Wali 2011). This problem is being addressed at Mont-Saint-Michel through the creation of a large area of landscape influence that prohibits construction of wind turbines within the visual cone of the World Heritage site, a reasonable solution given the already extensive size of the existing buffer zone and the potential difficulty of

228

managing a substantial increase in administrative units simply to regulate a single type of development activity (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011).

At the Causses and Cévennes, wind turbines have been prohibited within the

World Heritage site, although are allowed within the buffer zone (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). In the case of Mont-Saint-Michel, wind turbines pose a visual threat due to the close link between the site’s visual isolation and its OUV

(Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011), whereas at the Causses and Cévennes, the

OUV is linked to the agro-pastoral activity and traditions of the landscape (UNESCO

World Heritage Centre 2015c) rather than aesthetics of isolation. Prohibiting wind turbines within the entire cultural landscape, which is extremely large (302,319 ha, over

1,000 square miles) (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015c), while allowing them in the buffer zone may be problematic and unnecessary. Given the State Party’s commitment to increase reliance on renewable energy sources and the constraints on the placement of wind turbines (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011), a region of low population density might be ideal for wind farms; the prohibition within the inscribed site might lead to a high concentration within the buffer zone, rather than a dispersed pattern that would have less overall impact on the landscape. Furthermore, the Causses and Cévennes represent a living and changing cultural landscape (UNESCO World

Heritage Centre 2015c), and the addition of a new way to exploit marginal land in a traditionally resource-poor region could prove to be in character with the traditions of the landscape. In this case, the involvement of local stakeholders would be of high importance in evaluating the potential impact of wind turbines and whether or not they would be viewed as an unwelcome intrusion or an acceptable addition by the local

229

residents. A reasonable option would be coordinating dispersal of wind farms throughout the buffer zone and the World Heritage site, provided there is local stakeholder approval and wind turbines were prohibited in any areas sensitive to visual intrusion.

Intrusive urban development is the other primary threat to visual integrity at many

World Heritage sites, in general. Provins is the only site out of the six case studies that has experienced specific problems related to inappropriate urban development within its buffer zone (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2010c), although both Lyon and

Versailles also have adjacent urban areas. At Provins, the problem is linked to decisions made by government representatives at the municipal level, decisions over which the federal government has no control (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2012b). The problem is compounded by the dual nature of the immediate setting of the World

Heritage site; the Lower Town is surrounded by more modern urban areas, while most of the Upper Town and nearly all of its medieval ramparts are surrounded by agricultural land and forest. Protecting the visual character of the ramparts in their rural setting is important to this World Heritage site, and must be considered as different in nature from remains of medieval walls that are already embedded within more recent urban fabric.

Furthermore, the buffer zone boundary aligns with the limits of the commune (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000); prohibiting urban development within the entire buffer zone is certainly an unreasonable and unnecessary expectation. However, instead of considering the buffer zone as a monolithic area that should have a single set of regulations and prohibitions, Provins seems to be a good example of a site that might benefit from a differentiated buffer zone, where certain areas are designated as

230

appropriate for development needs while others retain their rural character. Like

Provins, Versailles is partially embedded in a wider urban context along one edge of the

World Heritage site, while the other abuts agricultural land. The regulations within the buffer zone at Versailles nicely demonstrate the effectiveness of a differentiated buffer zone, as the urban areas are regulated under the status of surroundings of a historic monument and through spatial planning documents, while the rural areas are regulated as a classified heritage site. Strict enforcement in these different areas of the buffer zone has allowed excellent protection of Versaille’s OUV.

Lyon presents a circumstance contrasting with Provins and Versailles in that it is, itself, a dense urban site and is inscribed on the World Heritage List for its urban values

(UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015e). Its wider setting is also urban, although of more recent date (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). The buffer zone at Lyon was revised during the nomination process (ICOMOS 1998), and seems somewhat haphazard in the sense that it does not correspond to any legislative or regulatory boundaries, nor does it correspond to any municipal administrative units. It is a buffer zone that exists only on a map, and has no protections to differentiate it from the surrounding urban context outside the buffer zone boundary. While one can imagine development that might be inappropriate at the edge of the World Heritage site, the protections afforded the inscribed site arise from the city’s spatial planning documents and apply to the setting both within and outside the buffer zone (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). Unless a specific threat arises, Lyon seems to be a good case for a World Heritage site where a buffer zone is currently unnecessary.

231

Like Lyon, Vézère Valley presents a site whose visual setting is not in need of further protection through implementation of a buffer zone, although a buffer zone at

Vézère Valley could aid in mitigating other issues, as discussed below. The sites within

Vézère Valley are all thousands of years old (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a); the setting was characterized by a climate and ecosystems that were quite different from that of today. The serial sites are all caves or archaeological deposits (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a), and the external physical context does not impact the property’s OUV in terms of aesthetics or visual values.

Threat of Significant Alterations to Physical Setting

Flooding poses a potential threat to three of the six case studies, and is a common potential threat identified at many World Heritage sites. The State Party mentions flooding as a potential threat at both Lyon and Vézère Valley (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g; Ministère de la culture et de la communication

1998b), and given the hydraulic system and the proximity of the river to the Lower

Town, portions of Provins may also be at risk of flooding. In the case of Vézère Valley and Provins, the river is outside the World Heritage site; it is within the buffer zone at

Provins, and Vézère Valley has no buffer zone, but the river flows through the center of the cluster of serial sites that comprise the property. At both sites, low-lying components of the World Heritage site are at risk, and it is possible that flood controls in a buffer zone could help. As the State Party is evaluating the need for a buffer zone at Vézère

Valley (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g), considering its potential to

232

protect low-lying sites from flooding would be valuable. At Lyon, the Saône River runs through the World Heritage site and the Rhône river runs directly east of the site. There are already flood controls in place (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

1998b), and as both rivers flow through much of the urban context, including the areas outside both the inscribed site and the buffer zone, it seems unlikely that the buffer zone would play a specific role in flood prevention.

Afforestation and fire are concerns at both Vézère Valley and the Causses and

Cévennes. At Vézère Valley, the forested areas within the boundary of the serial sites are problematic in terms of the impact managing the vegetation may have on the caves

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2015). However, the risk of fire must be addressed outside the boundary of the World Heritage property at each serial site other than Hill of Lascaux, which is a larger area than any of the other serials sites. Individual buffer zones around the serial sites could prove beneficial in forest management and monitoring, as well as allowing the creation of fire breaks for sites that could be threatened by forest fires. While afforestation at the Causses and Cévennes is primarily a problem inside the inscribed site, it is related to the threat of wildfires from outside the site (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). The portion of the buffer zone to the west of the inscribed site is primarily comprised of forested plateaus, and these forests present some risk of fire spreading from the buffer zone to the inscribed site, especially as areas within the World Heritage site are becoming more forested

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). Measures within this portion of the buffer zone could provide two forms of protection, the first by creating fire breaks much like at Vézère Valley. A second option would be an investigation of the landscape

233

of forested plateaus in the buffer zone to determine whether there has ever been a

pattern of open spaces similar to those further east in the Causses; if so, restoring this

habitat might also aid in preventing afforestation, particularly if invasive species are

targeted for removal.

Mont-Saint-Michel offers insight into a complex and unique problem of significant

change to its landscape setting in terms of the siltation of the Bay. Although siltation is a

natural process in many coastal areas, including in the Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel, in the

case of the World Heritage site it was exacerbated by over a hundred years of practices

that encouraged the deposition of sediment (Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011).

Specific projects in both the World Heritage site and the buffer zone have contributed to reducing this threat (État de conservation 2014). Continued monitoring within the entire hydrological system in the buffer zone may aid in tracking the effectiveness of the project to re-establish the maritime character of the Mont, as well as to identify potential new problems with siltation.

Impact of Human Activity

Beyond the commonly cited development issues at many World Heritage sites, other human activities like agricultural and mining activities can negatively impact an inscribed site; three of the six French case studies have issues related to human activity. Lascaux Cave in Vézère Valley has been negatively impacted by microbial growths since the 1960s (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2008b). While these outbreaks were originally driven by human visitors inside the cave, there is some evidence that agricultural practices in the surrounding area may introduce contaminants to the local water system and soil, encouraging microbial growth (Gauthier 2006). This suggests that protection and monitoring in the area around the caves is crucial, given

234

the complex nature of this issue and the long duration of its threat to Lascaux Cave, and

possibly to other caves within the World Heritage site. Contaminants known to

encourage the types of growths found in Lascaux Cave should be monitored in both the

hydrological basin and the soil of the area; if further study indicates that these

contaminants do indeed contribute to specific problems in one or more caves in the

World Heritage site, protective measures should be implemented to prevent infiltration.

Vehicular traffic and the vibrations it causes have also been identified as a

potential issue in Vézère Valley, particularly at Hill of Lascaux (Ministère de la culture et

de la communication 2015). There are several sites in Vézère Valley that have roads

running directly above the caves (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and

Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2012); while there is no indication

that roads in the area adjacent to the sites are problematic, individual buffer zones to

provide for alternative transit or road infrastructure that does not cross any of the

inscribed caves could prove beneficial. Vehicular traffic and the air pollution it causes

has also been identified as a potential issue at Lyon; however, traffic restrictions in

place throughout the urban core have effectively reduced pollutant levels (Ministère de

la culture et de la communication 1998b), and the relatively small size of the buffer zone

compared to total urban area1 suggests that the buffer zone has only a minor role to

play in reducing air pollution.

1 According to the UNESCO World Heritage website, Lyon’s buffer zone is 323 ha (2015d). According to the official website of the City of Lyon, the city proper is 4,787 ha and the metropolitan area is over 55,000 ha (http://www.lyon.fr/page/decouvrir-lyon/portrait-dune-ville/lyon-carte-didentite.html).

235

Relationships Between Inscribed Sites and Elements of Their Setting

Several of the six case studies demonstrate relationships or potential relationships between the inscribed site and elements of the surrounding setting. The basin of the Vézère River currently includes a number of Paleolithic decorated caves and archaeological deposits discovered since the property’s inscription (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g). It would be ideal to select those sites that share the property’s OUV and add them to the existing inscription. The addition of a buffer zone that corresponds to the geographical area where related caves and archaeological remains are likely to be found may also be worthwhile, and is a practice that has already been used to define buffer zones at several existing World Heritage sites (Marshall

2011; Mujica 2009).

Like Vézère Valley, there are elements of the landscape surrounding Mont-Saint-

Michel that are related to the inscribed site. Further examination would be necessary to determine whether the montjoies related to the Mont’s role as a pilgrimage destination share in the site’s OUV; if so, the inscribed site should be extended to include them, or at the very least to include those demonstrating an acceptable level of conservation.

The area around Mont-Saint-Michel is also characterized by traditional economic activities, including raising livestock on the polders as well as fishing and gathering shellfish; while these pursuits do not directly relate to the site’s OUV, they have shaped the landscape around the Mont for centuries (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel

2014c). Regulatory measures within the buffer zone should take these activities into

236

account, and encourage their sustainable practice where possible, as they may also deter the encroachment of less compatible economic activity.

The Causses and Cévennes have a more direct economic relationship with an area outside both the inscribed site and the buffer zone. The flocks of sheep that are part of the system of transhumance in the Cévennes spend the winters on the Plain of

Languedoc, which is outside the buffer zone (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2011). When the State Party defined the boundary of the inscribed site, it identified physical elements of the landscape that are related to the agro-pastoral traditions of the region, excluding areas that did not demonstrate enough physical components related to traditional cultural practices (ICOMOS 2011). That the Plain of

Languedoc were excluded from the site suggests that, while there is a cultural connection to the area, there are either not enough physical elements related to agro- pastoral practices, or they are in such a poor state of conservation as to warrant exclusion from the inscribed site. However, the Plain of Languedoc should certainly be included within the site’s buffer zone in order to protect and encourage the practices that are so important to the inscribed cultural landscape.

Legislation, Regulation, and Management

In order to be effective, buffer zones need legislative or regulatory protective measures, or to be closely tied to the management system of the site, especially since ownership and management varies within areas of both World Heritage sites and their buffer zones, including privately owned property as well as property owned by federal or local governments. At Provins, local authorities approved inappropriate development near the World Heritage site (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2010c). Without the support of local authorities in enforcing protective measures that rely on local

237

regulations, it is difficult for the State Party to take action to safeguard a World Heritage site. As discussed above, there are options for differentiation within areas of a buffer zone to offer a variety of protections, but equally important is that the management system and local stakeholders are willing and able to take an active role in safeguarding the property. Most of the other French sites examined face a similar issue in terms of the coordination of multiple administrative levels and regulatory zones; only Lyon has a coordinated system that covers the entirety of both the World Heritage site and the buffer zone within a single urban commune regulated by one PLU (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). Both Versailles and Vézère Valley involve numerous communes; ownership of the World Heritage site is limited to the State Party in the case of Versailles (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979c) and a handful of private owners in addition to the State Party in the case of Vézère Valley

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g). At Versailles, the buffer zone covers a fairly extensive area (9,467 ha) within 22 communes (UNESCO World

Heritage Centre 2015h). The buffer zone’s main protective measures are the surroundings of the historic monument as well as the classified heritage site in the rural area (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005). These protected areas function in a similar manner to an overlay zone, in the case of the classified heritage site protecting the rural and agricultural nature of the area, and in the case of the surroundings of the historic monument the area serves to specifically protect the palace complex. In other words, these combined areas form an effective buffer zone because they were established to

238

specifically protect the characteristics from which the World Heritage site draws its value, and even if the individual communes act independently of one another, it is unlikely to negatively impact the site. Likewise at Vézère Valley, the protection for each individual site is largely effective at present, although a buffer zone would help monitor and possibly mitigate potential threats that have been identified in the area

(Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014g).

At Mont-Saint-Michel, however, the OUV of the site and its relationship to the landscape setting offer a significant problem in terms of coordinating the many local authorities making decisions about development and activities that could impact the site. The buffer zone is large, encompassing 20 communes within two departments

(Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011). These communes extend the length of both sides of the Bay, such that many areas within the buffer zone are quite distant from the

Mont (Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005), and local authorities and stakeholders may be unaware of how local projects could impact the site’s OUV (UNESCO World Heritage Committee

1990b). To further compound the issue of coordination, wind turbine activity outside the buffer zone has negatively impacted the site, so a wind turbine exclusion zone involving

169 communes was designated (État de conservation 2014). Whether the wind turbine exclusion zone is referred to as a secondary buffer zone, an area of landscape influence, or the wider setting of Mont-Saint-Michel – all terms used in World Heritage

Centre and Advisory Body documents related to buffer zones – is of no consequence.

The recognition that this wider scale of protection is necessary, but only for one specific

239

threat, demonstrates that it may be effective to create a tiered system of protection in

order to avoid difficulty in coordinating more administrative agencies than is necessary

to deal with a specific site.

The Causses and Cévennes also involve an extremely large number of

administrative units, with 125 communes in the World Heritage site and additional

adjacent communes in the buffer zone (Ministère de la culture et de la communication

2011). Like Mont-Saint-Michel, however, different portions of the setting have varied

roles in protecting the World Heritage site from specific threats. A series of buffer zones

or a buffer zone with differentiated areas, for instance, an area with forestry regulations related to preventing afforestation and wild fire or an area to protect related economic zones, would be appropriate for a site of this size and complexity. Given the amount of study required on the part of State Party experts to determine appropriate characteristics and boundaries for the World Heritage site, it seems reasonable that local stakeholders both within the inscribed site and within its buffer zone may not perceive the site as monolithic or unified in the same way that a single monument or cluster of buildings might be perceived. Multiple buffer zones or a differentiated buffer zone would allow local stakeholders to be aware of and focus on the threats related to their geographic area, cooperating with a smaller number of other communes or regulatory areas.

Tourism and Opportunities

As discussed in chapter 3, the consensus in the literature suggests that buffer zones present the opportunity for enhancement of World Heritage sites. Among the six

French cases, there are two that are well-suited to a buffer zone that would not only protect the inscribed site but potentially enhance it through improvements to tourist

240

accommodations. At Mont-Saint-Michel, such a strategy is already being employed within the buffer zone. The Mont itself experiences considerable pressure from tourism, but the buffer zone offers the opportunity for more tourist destinations that can also provide a deeper understanding of the site’s landscape context and history (État de conservation 2014).

Most of the sites that comprise the Vézère Valley property also experience significant tourist pressure. The reproductions of Lascaux Cave and the strict limitation on number of visitors in caves still open to the public highlight their popularity and vulnerability. There are other tourist destinations that offer experiences related to

Paleolithic history in the surrounding area, for example, several museums, as well as a zoo with the modern descendants of many of the animal species depicted in the caves and artwork of the World Heritage site. A buffer zone that targets potential areas for additional tourist destinations that would increase knowledge of the individual sites and how they relate to one another could greatly enhance the public understanding of these sites and their OUV.

Analysis of French Legal Protections for Heritage

There is a wide variety of measures available to protect World Heritage sites and to manage buffer zones in France, including numerous laws, policies, parks with charters, management plans, and spatial planning regulations. While each nation has its own unique constellation of measures to safeguard cultural heritage, this is a fairly typical combination of approaches available in most States Parties described in the literature. There is no one approach that is suitable for all World Heritage sites or buffer zones, although certainly not all approaches are equally effective in practice. In part, this has to do with the effectiveness of the measures themselves in offering protection,

241

but it is also related to the specific measures available or selected for any given site or buffer zone and the threats that need to be addressed. A mismatch between measures and threats will prove insufficient in protecting the inscribed site.

One of the strongest protections available for cultural heritage sites in France is classification as a historic monument under the Historic Monuments Act of 1913, which provides strict legal regulations both in terms of alterations that can be made to the site itself as well as regulation of the immediate surroundings of the monument (Longuet and Vincent 2001). Classified historic moments are established on the basis of a law that has been in place for over a hundred years, and amendments to the law have strengthened its provisions and protective capacity over time. This type of legal protection is based on a model meant to safeguard individual monuments, and works best in this capacity. While several of the French case studies include classified historic monuments within a larger property, for example, Provins or Mont-Saint-Michel

(Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979b; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000), the protected surroundings of individual monuments would be insufficient to protect the larger property and its setting. This is even more pronounced at a cultural landscape like the Causses and Cévennes.

For larger scale areas and landscapes, the regulations provided by classification as a heritage site under the Heritage Sites Act of 1930 offer similar protection to a classified historic monument in terms of legal enforcement, and may include a protective zone around the classified heritage site that requires the review of building permits (Fontaine 1980; Longuet and Vincent 2001; Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). Classified heritage sites are a component of several of the

242

French case studies’ buffer zones, and are particularly important for preserving agricultural and rural areas. Like the Historic Monuments Act, the Heritage Sites Act is a long-lived and well-established piece of legislation that is quite effective at protecting the characteristics of sites that are so designated.

Both the Historic Monuments Act and the Heritage Sites Act also allow for the creation of registered monuments and registered heritage sites, respectively (Fontaine

1980). Neither status offers particularly strong legal protections, as any alteration simply requires the owner to notify the appropriate ministerial representative (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 2000). However, the recognition that a monument or site is registered on its respective inventory does increase awareness of its importance, and also offers owners a small financial benefit that may act as an incentive to protecting its character (Fontaine 1980).

The French National Park system offers strict regulation within the boundary of a park, as well as monitoring of the surrounding area (Sommier and Berger 2015). The best protected portion of the Causses and Cévennes property, for example, is a

National Park (ICOMOS 2011). However, in comparison with other protective designations, National Parks are extremely rare, and apply only to areas with remarkable natural features.

As is common at many World Heritage sites, many of the French sites rely on spatial planning documents to protect both the inscribed site and the buffer zone. In the case of France, however, these regulations are enforced at the local level (Thoin 2006;

UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2010c), so commitment to and understanding of a

World Heritage site’s OUV and how to protect it may vary considerably from one site to

243

the next. As illustrated by the case of Provins, local authorities must be willing participants in safeguarding a World Heritage site’s setting and must understand the setting’s relationship with the site’s OUV. This problem is increased when multiple municipalities are involved, as at Mont-Saint-Michel. In the case of Lyon, however, there is a high level of local dedication to preserving the historic urban character, such that the spatial planning regulations are quite effective (Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1998b). Local commitment to and understanding of conservation should be considered before relying on spatial planning regulations.

France also relies on several strategies with no regulatory power to protect its

World Heritage sites. For example, the wind turbine exclusion area at Mont-Saint-Michel has no regulatory power, nor do management plans (État de conservation 2014), but both are important tools that help local authorities make decisions that will protect nearby World Heritage sites. While care should be taken to ensure that sufficient regulatory measures are in place, States Parties should not overlook non-regulatory approaches that can increase protection at World Heritage sites. France also participates in certifications like AOC and AOP, which may help incentivize continuation of traditional practices by adding economic value to local goods if traditional production methods are employed.

When considering the set of measures to be used in protecting a World Heritage site and regulating a buffer zone, States Parties should also be aware that legal and judicial circumstances may change. For example, in France, while historic monument and heritage site legislation has remained fairly stable over many years, there are frequent changes to the types of spatial planning documents available to local

244

authorities. Over-reliance on one strategy that may be subject to expiration or significant change, for example, as will potentially occur at Provins with the expiration of ZPPAUPs in 2015 (Berthelot 2013), may leave a buffer zone unable to effectively safeguard its

World Heritage site. States Parties may also find creative options to aid in directly protecting a World Heritage site or in strengthening a buffer zone’s efficacy.

245

CHAPTER 14 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING AND EVALUATING BUFFER ZONES

Creating and Implementing Buffer Zones

As discussed in chapter 3, there are several points of consensus in the literature and by the World Heritage Centre concerning buffer zones, their creation, and their implementation. In general, it is considered important to differentiate between the buffer zone and the World Heritage site, as the buffer zone does not express the OUV of the inscribed site. A site may not need a buffer zone at all, multiple buffer zones may be necessary, and the wider setting beyond the buffer zone should not be disregarded, as it, too, may impact the World Heritage site in some cases. A buffer zone should be considered one tool among many for protecting a World Heritage site, it should be clearly defined with the input of local stakeholders and with consideration of the specific threats and features of the area, and when possible, it should be integrated with the management system for the inscribed site. While a buffer zone’s typical purpose is to protect a World Heritage site, it may also be useful in enhancing the inscribed site, the site’s setting, or the local community.

The World Heritage Centre manual to assist States Parties in preparing nominations to the World Heritage List outlines a basic approach to defining a buffer zone, with suggestions for necessary tasks that may be completed in any order. These tasks include the establishment of the site’s OUV, analysis of potential protection a buffer zone might offer, identification of legal options that would allow protection through a buffer zone, ensuring that appropriate measures can be taken to implement the buffer zone, and the delineation of the buffer zone based upon the results of the other four tasks (Marshall 2011). The manual also explicitly states that there is no official lexicon

246

of buffer zone terminology, as each State Party must choose language that works within its own legal and social framework (Marshall 2011). Finally, the manual notes that buffer zones may not always be necessary, particularly at subterranean sites (Marshall 2011).

In light of the recommendations in the literature and published case studies from the expert meetings at Hiroshima in 2006 and Davos in 2008, the instructions in the

Operational Guidelines and World Heritage Centre nomination manual, and the findings from the case studies in this research, the following approach to creating buffer zones builds upon the current framework for States Parties. Each of these steps should include collaboration with local stakeholders and residents regarding the site’s OUV, threats identified, the site’s setting, and regulatory and monitoring options. Local knowledge of existing problems, possible solutions, and how the site and its setting are perceived can be invaluable to creating an effective buffer zone.

1. OUV: Establish the site’s OUV and identify all components that express or contribute to that OUV.

2. Threats

• Identify all existing and foreseeable threats to the property’s OUV.

• Examine these threats, considering which of them relate to the site’s surroundings, and thus might be mitigated through the use of a buffer zone.

3. Protective Measures

• Identify which functions a potential buffer zone must fulfill in order to protect the World Heritage site from the threats identified; the buffer zone typology as discussed below is a tool to categorize buffer zone functions based on the type of risk they mitigate.

• Identify all relevant national and local laws, management systems, heritage programs, and decision-making agencies that apply to the site and its setting; these should be measures and agencies that deal with protecting or enhancing heritage and traditional activities in the area, and may include traditional management or resource stewardship practices. Compiling a list of measures

247

that extends well outside the site will be helpful, to ensure that all options that may aid in regulating a potential buffer zone are included.

• Match necessary buffer zone functions with available legislation, management measures, or programs that will allow mitigation of the specific threats identified.

4. Buffer Zone Boundaries

• Evaluate the geographic area relevant to each threat identified. Existing legislation, management measures, or programs should provide protection from the threat within this entire area.

• Boundaries may follow the limits of existing regulatory or management zones if these zones encompass all areas likely to contribute to mitigating the threat to the site.

• Boundaries may follow administrative limits that contain regulatory or management zones if this would enhance the awareness of local authorities of the need to protect the site or their ability to do so.

• New boundaries may be designated if no appropriate limits currently exist, although any new boundaries should correspond with either additions to existing regulatory or management guidelines or with a management plan that includes all relevant authorities and other decision-making stakeholders.

5. Monitoring

• The threats to the site and the effectiveness of the buffer zone should be monitored. The indicator framework discussed below is a tool to help select appropriate indicators to establish a monitoring procedure, although if another method for monitoring the buffer zone will be more effective at a given site, it should be employed instead of an indicator system.

• The monitoring system should allow for the addition of new indicators or procedures if additional threats are identified.

• Results of monitoring may indicate that new protective measures or adjustments to the buffer zone are necessary, so there should be a mechanism by which such a finding will trigger a modification to existing measures.

The system outlined above is a general guide that could be employed at any site, but is more specifically applicable to sites a State Party is preparing to nominate for inscription on the World Heritage List. There may be some cause for treating sites that

248

are already inscribed on the World Heritage List somewhat differently. In theory, any

site that is already inscribed has already gone through the process of having its OUV

identified, as well as any potential threats. In practice, many sites, especially those

inscribed during the early history of the World Heritage List, have unclear or incomplete

Declarations of OUV. In some cases, nearby features that share the site’s OUV were

not included in the inscribed site, while at others components that do not share the OUV

were inscribed. Prior to adding or altering a buffer zone at a site that is already on the

World Heritage List, the State Party should re-examine the declaration of OUV and the

inscription criteria, comparing it to the components of the site and its setting to

determine whether the boundary of the site needs adjustment. The advantage at sites

that have already been inscribed is that there may be greater awareness of potential

and current threats in the setting, as well as a better understanding of how the setting and the site relate to one another. Another possible strategy, either for a site under

study for nomination or for a site that is inscribed but may need a buffer zone, is the

creation of a preliminary monitoring buffer zone, as described in the buffer zone

typology below.

Determining That a Buffer Zone is Unnecessary

The simplest explanation of when a buffer zone is unnecessary is a circumstance

when delineating a buffer zone would not contribute to protection of a site’s OUV. There

are several situations in which this might be true:

• Sufficient regulatory or management measures exist to protect the site’s OUV. • The World Heritage site is surrounded by a hard boundary. • The site is extremely isolated. • A buffer zone would be detrimental to a site.

249

In examining whether existing regulations or management systems are sufficient to protect the site’s OUV, the State Party must consider all external threats that relate to the site’s setting. A State Party may still consider implementing a buffer zone if protection of the setting is achieved through multiple laws, regulations, or management systems, or if multiple administrative units are involved in executing the protections; in such cases a buffer zone might aid in coordinating those efforts. A State Party may also consider implementing a buffer zone even if existing protections stem from a single regulatory or management area if increased awareness that one of the zone’s purposes is to protect the World Heritage site would be beneficial. For example, if external threats to Versailles corresponded only to the surroundings of the historic monument, a buffer zone would be unnecessary, as the purpose of the designated surroundings is specifically to protect the components of the World Heritage site. If, however, the buffer zone were achieved only through a single classified heritage site, designation of a buffer zone might be useful in making explicit that one of the purposes of the heritage site is protection of all components of the World Heritage site, which is currently not the case.

If the World Heritage site is surrounded by a hard boundary but there could still be detrimental alterations to its setting, a State Party should delineate a buffer zone. For example, a site that comprises an entire island has a hard boundary between the site and the sea, but it may still be visually or environmentally impacted by the installation of offshore oil platforms or wind farms, depending on the values of the site.

A site that is extremely isolated from any human activity or development may mean that creation of a buffer zone would either constitute an arbitrarily designated area or the buffer zone would be so large as to be impossible to manage or regulate.

250

No buffer zone that is detrimental to a site should be delineated. The most likely scenario in this instance would be a buffer zone that would contribute to museification of an inscribed site or isolation that is out of character with the site’s historical use or context. Regulations within a buffer zone should correspond to threats to the inscribed site’s OUV, and should not be so restrictive as to make museification or isolation of the site likely. The character of a site’s setting may also be considered in this regard, for instance, if the setting has traditionally experienced extensive change over time, ongoing alteration may be a key feature of the site’s landscape.

Overall, the State Party should not designate an unnecessary buffer zone, but the need for such a zone must be determined on a case-by-case basis. If sufficient safeguards already exist and a buffer zone would not enhance this protection or the site’s OUV, either through direct protection or assisting local decision-makers and administrators to coordinate efforts, a buffer zone should not be delineated.

Buffer Zone Typology

The buffer zone at any World Heritage site should relate to the specific external threats to the inscribed site’s OUV, insofar as there is the potential to reduce the impact of those threats by creating a buffer zone. During this process, it is useful to consider the function or functions a buffer zone must fulfill in order to protect against each specific external threat. To this end, a typology of buffer zones related to function is described below.

The names used in the typology below are simply descriptive, and are not meant to correspond with specific legislative or regulatory categories. Furthermore, a single

World Heritage site may require several of the functions in the typology, enacted through the creation of a single unified buffer zone; a single differentiated buffer zone

251

with distinct or overlapping areas for dealing with each function; or multiple buffer

zones, possibly including more than one of a single typology function. The option

selected will depend upon the needs of the World Heritage site; the legislative,

regulatory, and management options available to the State Party; and what will prove

most effective in overseeing any individual buffer zone or set of buffer zones.

The buffer zone types described below are categorized based on general

function. There is overlap in the external threats they mitigate, as a different function

may be necessary based on the specific conditions of a site and how the threat may

impact it. The regulatory and protective measures available to a State Party may also

influence which type of buffer zone is most appropriate. Examples of threats that may

be addressed by each type are drawn from the French case studies, other case studies

in the literature, and general observations about possible threats as discussed in the

literature.

Visual Buffer Zone

A visual buffer zone is intended to protect the aesthetic and visible aspects of a

site and its general setting. This may include specific views, for example, as is the case

for the buffer zones of the Rhaetian Railway or the Sydney Opera House (Mürner 2009;

Wiffen 2006), or general viewsheds, as described at Mont-Saint-Michel. A visual buffer

zone may also protect the approach to a property (Marshall 2011), particularly if the setting of the approach is important to a full experience or understanding of the World

Heritage site. Other visual aspects may include intentional alignments with landscape features (Marshall 2011) or astronomical alignments. Inappropriate development may also threaten the visual setting of a site, for example, the proposed wind turbines near

Mont-Saint-Michel, or construction of an inappropriate scale or style adjacent to a World

252

Heritage site, for instance, the proposed housing developments beside the ramparts of

Provins. A visual buffer zone should include all areas that might visually or aesthetically impact the World Heritage site or its relationship with its surroundings, whether that involves a single line of sight, an entire landscape setting, or other aesthetic impacts.

Environmental Buffer Zone

An environmental buffer zone relates to the ecology or natural features of the setting. This type of buffer zone may be designated in order to establish an area that helps protect a World Heritage site from natural disaster, for example, wild fires, flooding, or earthquakes. An environmental buffer zone may also be used to regulate the local water supply or other natural resources, as well as to prevent local ecological conditions from being degraded when the surrounding area contributes to a site’s economic or environmental health (Marshall 2011). An environmental buffer zone might also focus on preventing the spread of invasive species into a World Heritage site or on providing additional habitat or resources for livestock or wildlife that are important to the inscribed site. This type of buffer zone could correspond to a natural area that requires management in order to prevent changes that would negatively impact the World

Heritage site, for example, afforestation at the Causses and Cévennes or siltation in the

Bay of Mont-Saint-Michel.

Human Activity Buffer Zone

A human activity buffer zone deals with the regulation of one or more specific human activities within a World Heritage site’s setting that may have a negative impact on the site. One of the most commonly cited issues in a site’s setting is inappropriate development, and while in some cases such development is problematic due to negative visual impact as discussed above, in others it may encroach on an

253

archaeological site or cause density problems or other related issues for a site.

Agricultural practices may also be a problem, as is the case at Songo Mnara in

Tanzania (Maro 2009), or potentially at Vézère Valley with the introduction of contaminants into the caves. Vehicular impact is also sometimes cited, as in the case of air pollution at Lyon or vibrational threat from roads above the caves in Vézère Valley. A human activity buffer zone may also draw attention to activities that are inappropriate in the near vicinity of a site not because of physical damage, but because of social impacts on a site’s OUV, for example, the emphasis placed on protecting solemnity in the surroundings of Auschwitz by prohibiting certain business activities and public gatherings (Kowalski 2006). A human activity buffer zone should include any areas where detrimental activities must be regulated or prohibited.

Affiliated Elements Buffer Zone

There are numerous examples of sites whose settings include elements related to the World Heritage site. These may be elements that share the site’s OUV but that are in a poor state of conservation or do not have strong enough regulatory protection to be included within the inscribed site, or they may be elements that do not demonstrate the site’s OUV but support it through specific cultural or physical features. The most common example of a type of site that would call for an affiliated elements buffer zone is an archaeological site; it is not unusual that the entire extent of archaeological remains is either unknown or unexcavated (Marshall 2011; Mujica 2009), and thus it is not known whether other remains share fully in the site’s OUV. An affiliated elements buffer zone would be delineated in order to encompass the area where future remains are most likely to be found, for instance, in the setting of Vézère Valley. Cultural routes are another type of site that may benefit from use of a buffer zone to include elements

254

of a large route that cannot be inscribed, for example, the montjoies of Mont-Saint-

Michel. This type of buffer zone may be useful for cultural landscapes, particularly those with boundaries that were difficult to define; for example, the relationship between the

Plain of Languedoc and the practice of transhumance in the Causses and Cévennes warrants protection of this area outside the boundary of the World Heritage site. As mentioned in the literature, there are also sites where the buffer zone aligns with the historical extent of an inscribed site (Stovel 2009); an affiliated elements buffer zone may accommodate such an approach, particularly if there may be archaeological evidence or other traces related to the history of the inscribed site within the area. The greater urban context of a historical center might be an appropriate buffer zone, given its obvious historical relationship to the center and in anticipation that at some point, development after inscription may also prove to be significant or relate to the site’s

OUV. Contemporary or recent industrial sites may also have elements in their setting that are related but do not share the site’s OUV, for instance, a quarry in the vicinity. An affiliated elements buffer zone should encompass only those areas that include or are likely to include features relevant to the inscribed site.

Opportunity Buffer Zone

Both the World Heritage Centre and the literature about buffer zones recommend that States Parties consider the possibility that a buffer zone may serve the function not just of protecting a World Heritage site, but of enhancing it (Berkowitz and Hoffman

2009; Marshall 2011; Mujica 2009; Stovel 2009; UNESCO World Heritage Centre

2009a; UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2009b; Villanueva 2006; Yang 2009). The opportunity to enhance the inscribed site and its surrounding community is especially pertinent when there are strict regulations and constraints on the World Heritage site

255

that prevent or make difficult the addition of features needed to support the site and its

setting. Frequently cited possibilities include provisions in a buffer zone to encourage

economic development or sustainable practices. Buffer zones at some sites, for

example, Mount Huangshan in China and Mont-Saint-Michel, are being used to accommodate tourists (État de conservation 2014; Marshall 2011; Yang 2009); this may include the addition of destinations for tourists in order to reduce visitation pressure on the inscribed site, or it may include options for tourist services like hotels and dining. At

Tel Aviv in Israel, restrictions on development within the inscribed site have made it difficult to add services for residents, so the buffer zone has provided the opportunity for additions like hospitals and parking facilities that will serve residents in both the buffer zone and the inscribed site (Berkowitz and Hoffman 2009). At a site like Provins, where there is obviously a need for new development and the existing buffer zone covers the entire commune, it would be helpful to create a secondary buffer zone within the first or differentiate the existing buffer zone to explicitly identify areas where new development will not negatively impact the World Heritage site. An opportunity buffer zone may also allow for the accommodation of renewable energy facilities, designating specific areas where these would be desirable, as wind turbines in particular are perceived as a growing problem near World Heritage sites, but are also increasingly popular as energy sources. Given that archaeological sites are typically fragile and should not be altered through reconstructions, but reconstructed facilities are popular with tourists and those seeking to attract them, an opportunity buffer zone might identify areas in the nearby setting of an archaeological site where a reproduction of one or more buildings would avoid harming archaeological remains but allow a very different experience and

256

improved understanding of the site’s material culture. An opportunity buffer zone should explicitly consider the needs of the local community as well as any programs for social or economic development that might aid in allowing the buffer zone to enhance the local area.

Administrative Buffer Zone

Many States Parties have no specific legislation to create or regulate buffer zones. Strict regulation with measures specific to the buffer zone may not always be necessary or possible. However, an administrative buffer zone may be a useful tool to coordinate protections when they are achieved through multiple regulatory districts or varied legislation. For example, at Versailles, the two main forms of protection within the buffer zone are the surroundings of the classified historic monument in the urban areas and the classified heritage site in the rural areas; having a single buffer zone in this case emphasizes that both regulatory areas have a complementary role to play that is specific to the protection of the World Heritage site. At other sites, for example, in the case of Mont-Saint-Michel or the Causses and Cévennes, there may be many administrative units that need to be coordinated. While a management plan would ideally coordinate all pertinent local stakeholders, in practice this is not always the case, as management plans often apply specifically to the inscribed site or even to individual elements within an inscribed site. An administrative buffer zone would aid in creating awareness of the need for cooperation in protecting a site that is embedded within a much larger setting. This type of buffer zone may also be useful if a State Party finds multiple buffer zones to be necessary at a given site to deal with a variety of threats; the administrative buffer zone could incorporate all of the individual buffer zones for the purposes of cooperation and the sharing of expertise, as well as ensuring that actions

257

taken in one area are less likely to have unexpected adverse impacts in another. An administrative buffer zone may not need to encompass all protected areas within the wider setting, particularly if there is a two-tier buffer zone system, but should instead link areas of the setting that require coordination.

Monitoring Buffer Zone

A monitoring buffer zone would be an area designated for monitoring one or more specific issues in the setting of a site. This would be a particularly useful tool in the case of sites inscribed without a buffer zone, but where the State Party is considering creating a buffer zone; establishing a zone for monitoring potential threats that have been identified would allow the State Party to determine appropriate boundaries for a future buffer zone, as well as regulatory measures that would be effective. A monitoring buffer zone might also cover a much larger area than other types of buffer zones that are linked to specific regulatory or preventative measures, as it creates no specific restrictions and is unlikely to require specific legislation for implementation. Having a monitoring buffer zone in place would allow the accumulation of data in case a regulatory buffer zone becomes necessary, and would also allow the State Party to quickly react to emerging threats.

Applying the Buffer Zone Typology to the French Case Studies

Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay

The buffer zone and wind turbine exclusion zone at Mont-Saint-Michel incorporate several of the above buffer zone typologies in a two-tier system. The immediate maritime setting of the Mont is actually included within the boundary of the inscribed site, although the terrestrial setting falls largely within the existing buffer zone.

The primary elements that must be considered in protecting the Mont from external

258

threats through the use of geographically-linked protective measures include visual

impact, particularly by wind turbines; siltation; tourism; and the vast surface area that

must be coordinated as part of this protective system.

The existing buffer zone appears to have enough relevant protections and

programs to encompass the function of an environmental buffer zone to control and

monitor siltation, and to offer opportunities for both creation of facilities to disperse

tourists throughout the landscape setting and to promote traditional economic practices.

It seems likely that the proposed management plan for the region will serve the same

purpose that an administrative buffer zone would, in terms of coordinating the many

local authorities involved in the buffer zone and inscribed site. The area of landscape

influence, which might be considered a secondary buffer zone, will hopefully prove

effective to protect the Mont from negative visual impact due to the construction of wind

turbines.

The remaining element that is currently lacking protection in any meaningful way

is the system of montjoies (Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO and Institutions

gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014c). While an

affiliated elements buffer zone might be considered given the close relationship between these structures and the values related to pilgrimage of the inscribed site, they are extremely far-flung and lie just within the area of landscape influence. The area of

influence covers 169 communes (État de conservation 2014), and it would be more

effective to coordinate those communes with an emphasis on a single issue –

preventing negative visual impact through large-scale structures – and adding the

montjoies as additional serial elements to the inscribed site. Should the State Party

259

determine, however, that the montjoies do not possess the same elements of OUV as

does the inscribed site, the best protection in that instance would be reliance on

designation as classified historic monuments or classified heritage sites within the area

of landscape influence.

Mont-Saint-Michel currently has a two-tier system to protect its setting. The area

of landscape influence fulfills the function of a visual buffer zone for excluding wind

turbines. The existing buffer zone adjacent to the inscribed site is effectively an

administrative buffer zone, coordinating the administrative units, and encompasses the

functions of visual, environmental, opportunity, and monitoring buffer zones.

Palace and Park of Versailles

The existing buffer zone of Versailles performs the same function as an

administrative buffer zone, explicitly linking the regulations of both the classified

heritage site and the surroundings of the classified historic monument to their role in

protecting the palace and its grounds. The buffer zone also has overlapping function

with the visual buffer zone typology, as existing regulations within the buffer zone must

account for visual compatibility in terms of scale and style of land use and development

near the inscribed site. Overall, the buffer zone of Versailles is a differentiated

administrative buffer zone, with distinct areas fulfilling the roles of two visual buffer

zones with different regulations and visual requirements.

Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley

The sites of Vézère Valley would benefit from a two-tier buffer zone system.

Small individual environmental or human activity buffer zones should be created that correspond to the particular needs at each site, depending on whether there are threats of wild fire, flooding, or vehicular traffic, and what size buffer zone would be required for

260

sufficient protection in each case. A secondary buffer zone to encompass a larger portion of the valley should be a combination of an affiliated elements buffer zone and a monitoring buffer zone. This would allow the incorporation of the area where other related sites are likely to be discovered, as well as monitoring for contaminants due to agricultural activity to help determine whether there is risk of damage and, if so, how best to prevent that damage. The secondary buffer zone would thus be simple to regulate, being primarily an area where conditions are monitored and also providing the opportunity to protect potentially related sites from human activities known to be detrimental to decorated caves. Overall, a two-tier buffer zone system for Vézère Valley would have small primary buffer zones fulfilling the functions of environmental and human activity buffer zones depending on the individual site, with a larger secondary buffer zone encompassing the primary buffer zones and fulfilling the function of affiliated elements and monitoring buffer zones.

Historic Site of Lyons

Examining the available information, the buffer zone of Lyon appears to be a

‘virtual buffer zone,’ existing only on a map. The original proposal in the nomination file corresponded with a visual buffer zone, protecting the immediate setting of the World

Heritage site where both the historic center and the newer area of the city are highly visible elements along the Rhône River. A takeaway lesson from Lyon would be that urban sites may not require a buffer zone, provided there are strong spatial planning regulations in place in the surrounding urban context. Another option at such a site would be to either ensure that the buffer zone boundaries correspond to administrative boundaries or that the spatial planning documents include the buffer zone designation and any additional regulations that apply there.

261

Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs

Provins is another example of a site that would benefit from a set of buffer zones or a buffer zone with differentiated areas. The setting around the Lower Town requires a buffer zone that protects against inappropriate development and possibly flooding, while the Upper Town requires a buffer zone more explicitly linked to the visual protection of the ramparts in an agricultural setting. Aligning the buffer zone boundary with the commune limits creates an administrative buffer zone, although in the case of Provins, it seems this has led to a perception that the buffer zone is relatively undifferentiated and that the same conditions as exist near the Lower Town might be suitable near the Upper

Town, which is not the case. The existing buffer zone is an administrative buffer zone and should continue to function as such, with consideration for the need to fulfill the function of two different visual buffer zones, as well as the need for an opportunity buffer zone to identify areas for development and possibly an environmental buffer zone to protect against flooding.

The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape

The large scale of this site and its buffer zone indicate that it is a good candidate for a series of buffer zones or a differentiated buffer zone. To the west, the forested plateaus would best be regulated as an environmental buffer zone, protecting the

Causses within the inscribed site from encroaching forest and from wild fire. To the southeast, the Plain of Languedoc should be added as an affiliated elements buffer zone, given the importance of this area as a wintering over spot for the migratory flocks of sheep. An opportunity buffer zone might also be created to designate areas where wind farms would be admissible. Finally, an administrative buffer zone would assist in coordinating this extremely large area with diverse needs, and in raising awareness in

262

the areas around the cultural landscape of the need to protect the traditional practices and landscape features of the region.

Overall, the existing buffer zone for the Causses and Cévennes should be expanded to form a single administrative buffer zone encompassing the other buffer zones or differentiated areas within the larger buffer zone. Within the overall buffer zone are different geographic areas requiring the functions of an environmental buffer zone in the west, an affiliated elements buffer zone for the Plain of Languedoc, and possibly an opportunity buffer zone related to wind turbine placement.

Recommendations for Expert Evaluation of Buffer Zones

Currently, buffer zones are evaluated by expert representatives of the Advisory

Bodies when a site is nominated to the World Heritage List, when a buffer zone is added or altered at an inscribed site, or when there is a reactive monitoring mission that relates to an issue in the buffer zone (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a). The

ICOMOS Position Paper resulting from the Davos meeting in 2008 summarizes the question checklist provided by Giora Solar intended to aid experts in evaluating buffer zones, as discussed in chapter 3 (Stovel 2009). Based on these questions with the addition of recommendations in this research, the following steps are suggested for evaluating a potential buffer zone:

1. Ensure that the declaration of OUV is complete and reflects the heritage values of the site.

2. Confirm that the State Party has identified all existing and likely potential threats to the World Heritage site, and that there is a solid understanding of which of these threats is related to the site’s setting.

263

3. Consider the role a buffer zone must play in mitigating each threat related to the site’s setting.

• Does the boundary of the buffer zone correspond with the physical area where the threat may exist or that may be the source of the related negative impact on the inscribed site? This should be true for each threat, whether there is a single buffer zone that deals with all threats, a differentiated buffer zone based on two or more threats, or multiple buffer zones based on two or more threats.

• Are there sufficient legal, regulatory, or management tools within the entire area of the buffer zone corresponding to a given threat and its mitigation? Each buffer zone or area of a buffer zone should have appropriate mitigation tools for the threat to which it is matched.

4. Confirm that the monitoring procedure and any indicators selected to track the effectiveness of the buffer zone will be able to measure features appropriate to mitigating all potential threats within a site’s setting. States Parties should be dissuaded from including indicators that are too difficult to measure or compare over time, or that are irrelevant.

5. Ensure that there is sufficient coordination of the World Heritage site and its buffer zone or buffer zones.

• Is there a management plan that encompasses both the inscribed site and its buffer zone(s)? If not, how is the buffer zone managed and regulated, and how is this activity coordinated with similar activity in the inscribed site?

• Are monitoring procedures coordinated between the inscribed site and its buffer zone(s)? In most cases, an effective set of indicators should integrate monitoring in both areas, so a proposal without integration between site and buffer zone monitoring should be strongly discouraged.

6. If a nomination is submitted without a buffer zone, is the State Party’s justification reasonable given the conditions at the site and in its surroundings?

7. If evaluating a proposed change to an existing buffer zone or participating in a reactive monitoring mission involving a site’s buffer zone, the same process and questions are useful, but any previous monitoring of the site and its buffer zone should

264

also be considered as further evidence as to whether changes are necessary, appropriate, and likely to be effective.

265

CHAPTER 15 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MONITORING BUFFER ZONES

UNESCO World Heritage Monitoring: Existing Requirements and Programs

The Operational Guidelines specify that a nomination to the World Heritage List must include a section that details the monitoring procedures at the inscribed site

(UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a). The required information is a set of key indicators that are either already in use or that the State Party plans to use to monitor the site’s state of conservation, any factors that affect the site, and conservation practices in place (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a). The State Party must also indicate the monitoring schedule and the party responsible for conducing the monitoring (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a).

The manual to aid States Parties in preparing nomination documents suggests that the key indicators be provided in tabular form along with the schedule for collecting the data and the location where the records can be found (Marshall 2011). Both qualitative and quantitative indicators are acceptable, so long as they relate to the site’s

OUV and are not chosen simply because they are measurable (Marshall 2011). The sample qualitative indicator offered is the suggestion that a photo be taken from the same vantage point at specified intervals, while the list of example quantitative indicators includes:

(i) number of species, or population of a keystone species on a natural property;

(ii) percentage of buildings requiring major repair in a historic town or district;

(iii) number of years estimated to elapse before a major conservation programme is likely to be completed;

266

(iv) stability or degree of movement in a particular building or element of a building;

(v) rate at which encroachment of any kind on a property has increased or diminished. (Marshall 2011:120)

The nomination manual also discusses factors that affect sites, indicating that

States Parties must include information about any factor that may impact OUV, whether

it is a threat or a potentially positive influence (Marshall 2011). As described in the manual, the main categories of factors that may affect a property include development, environmental status, natural disaster, tourism, and tally of inhabitants in the site and its buffer zone (Marshall 2011). States Parties are reminded to describe how each of these factors impacts the site, excluding any factors that do not pose a current or potential threat (Marshall 2011).

In addition to routine monitoring procedures as described in the nomination file,

States Parties are also expected to participate in periodic reporting. Periodic reporting occurs cyclically, with States Parties in each world region submitting reports on their national conservation laws and efforts as well as reports about each inscribed site within their territory (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a). Periodic reporting is a tool

for tracking whether or not sites’ OUV is effectively protected and to promote

cooperation within regions that are likely to face similar conservation issues (UNESCO

World Heritage Committee 2013a). One cycle of periodic reporting lasts six years, with

four regions – Arab States, Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the

Caribbean – reporting sequentially during the first four years, and the final region,

Europe and North America, reporting during the final two years of the cycle (UNESCO

World Heritage Committee 2013a).

267

The final form of monitoring at World Heritage sites is reactive monitoring, which

only occurs if there is a specific and urgent threat at an inscribed property (UNESCO

World Heritage Committee 2013a). Reactive monitoring is intended to help avoid

delisting a site by preventing an active threat from irrevocably damaging a property’s

OUV (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a). The process involves evaluation of

the site by representatives of the World Heritage Centre and the appropriate Advisory

Body in cooperation with representatives of the State Party and site managers

(UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a). The subsequent reactive monitoring

mission report on site conditions is used by the World Heritage Committee to decide on a recommended course of action, with the expectation that the State Party will adhere to these recommendations and follow up with state of conservation reports to the

Committee as requested (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a).

In 2008, a process was initiated to examine state of conservation reports for general trends, first examining the reports from 2008, then the reports from 2005 to

2009, with the intention of further study regarding how best to identify trends and encourage methodical monitoring (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015n). In 2013,

the results of the study culminated in the finalization of a database of state of

conservation reports that is publicly available on the UNESCO World Heritage website,

a tool that States Parties and stakeholders can use to search by features such as

threat, year, property name, and State Party (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015n).

Also in 2008, the World Heritage Committee used the results of the first cycle of

periodic reporting to create a categorization of threats and conditions that affect World

Heritage sites, known as the List of Factors Affecting the Properties (UNESCO World

268

Heritage Centre 2015f). The list of factors includes fourteen primary factors and their subordinate secondary factors, as well as examples of threats in each category

(Appendix D) (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015f). The list was part of an effort to standardize the overall World Heritage monitoring process, and the resulting list of threats was also used in the online state of conservation information system to facilitate searches by using uniform terms (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015f).

The World Heritage website includes an “indicators” heading for each inscribed property, which has a chart of threats discussed in state of the conservation reports from the time of inscription through the present. The indicators are actually the search terms for the secondary factors in the List of Factors Affecting the Properties, and are not related to the key indicators for monitoring inscribed sites that States Parties are asked to include in the nomination file. The categories of factors that might affect sites as described in the nomination manual also differ from the those in the List of Factors

Affecting the Properties, although it is possible a future update of the nomination manual may reflect the new list.

Overall, there are three sets of terms or indicators currently in use for describing monitoring of World Heritage sites. The first is the set of key indicators for monitoring the site’s OUV that the State Party is required to submit in the nomination file; these indicators, where they have been submitted, are unique to a given site and determined by the State Party. The second is the list of factors that may impact the property as described in the manual to aid States Parties in preparing a nomination to the World

Heritage List, and has five general categories. The third is the set of factors in the List of

Factors Affecting the Properties, which has fourteen primary factors plus related

269

secondary factors, and is used to categorize threats discussed in state of conservation reports, create search terms for the state of conservation information system, and as the keywords in the “indicators” heading for each property on the World Heritage website. It is possible the next version of the nomination manual will correspond to the new list of factors, although indicators chosen by States Parties for monitoring inscribed sites will still be determined according to the needs of the individual site.

Monitoring Buffer Zones Using Indicators

Just as monitoring is important within a World Heritage site to track its state of conservation, monitoring within the buffer zone is important in order to ensure that it is effectively protecting the World Heritage site. All monitoring should be coordinated, as the buffer zone’s function is to protect the site’s OUV, and any changes within the site may be related to conditions in either the site or its setting. Monitoring within the buffer zone presents the opportunity to identify problems before they seriously threaten an inscribed site, and possibly to identify new threats as they arise. Should a new threat arise or the buffer zone prove ineffective, the analysis of monitoring data will be useful in determining whether new regulations are required, better enforcement of existing regulations is needed, or if the buffer zone boundary needs to be altered. In the latter case, adjustments to the boundary of a buffer zone are classified as a minor modification to the boundary of the property (UNESCO World Heritage Committee

2013a), meaning that it is not considered a new nomination and thus does not reduce the number of nominations the State Party can submit to the World Heritage Committee that year.

States Parties that have designated and implemented tracking of key indicators for inscribed sites should already have a good basis for monitoring, as properly chosen

270

indicators should help determine whether negative impacts on the site and its OUV are occurring. Indicators selected to track in the buffer zone should be integrated with any indicators being measured inside the inscribed site; there is likely to be some overlap between the two, for example, the need to monitor development both inside and near an urban World Heritage site. However, some indicators will be unique to the buffer zone, for example, related to its role in protecting a site’s setting.

Best Practices in Selecting and Using Indicators

Indicators for both the World Heritage site and its buffer zone should be chosen according to best practices and the needs of the site. While no set of indicators or data is completely comprehensive, it should be a reasonable proxy for the factors being monitored (Phillips 2003). It is not uncommon for sets of indicators to be organized into themes or categories within a framework, particularly issue- or theme-based frameworks (Department of Economics and Social Affairs of the United Nations

Secretariat 2007), which allows organization of indicators when numerous factors need to be monitored. An indicator set should accurately depict relevant past and current conditions, without excluding important factors (Department of Economics and Social

Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat 2007). Although it is typically suggested that undue overlap between individual indicators should be avoided (Department of

Economics and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat 2007; Hoernig and

Seasons 2005), some overlap in indicators at a World Heritage site or buffer zone may not be as problematic as in other cases, as the purpose is to identify the existence of issues as quickly as possible rather than to create an aggregate number or status for comparison with other sites or nations. Selecting a combination of indicators related to the same factor may provide a more accurate understanding of existing conditions

271

(Phillips 2006), for example, tracking both overall area of remaining wetlands and tallies of key species to have a better comprehension of wetlands health than a single indicator could provide. States Parties should consider including local stakeholders in the process of selecting indicators, in order to consider local perspectives that may otherwise be overlooked (Hoernig and Seasons 2005). Furthermore, given that new circumstances and threats can arise, it is also important to be able to add or remove indicators if necessary (Hoernig and Seasons 2005).

When choosing indicators to track, it is necessary to determine whether or not they can be measured in terms of availability of accurate data, cost of collecting and analyzing the data (Hoernig and Seasons 2005), and whether there is local capacity to interpret potential positive and negative impacts based on the data (Department of

Economics and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat 2007). Typical sources for data include public agency statistics, community surveys, and census data (Stuart

1972), while maintenance and management records at a site are also likely to be important data sources. Although indicators must be measurable, measurable data is not always useful data (Marshall 2011; Phillips 2003); indicators must be relevant to what is being monitored (Department of Economics and Social Affairs of the United

Nations Secretariat 2007). The definition of individual indicators and the manner of measuring them must be consistent over time, so that the data remains valid when used for comparison and identification of trends (Department of Economics and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat 2007; Hoernig and Seasons 2005; Phillips 2003). For the purposes of monitoring World Heritage sites and their buffer zones, this consistency will be pertinent mainly at the site level, rather than the national or international level, as

272

the goal is protecting individual sites with varying conditions, threats, and heritage. Just as States Parties should establish a schedule for collecting and analyzing data for indicators within the World Heritage site (Marshall 2011), there should be a schedule for the buffer zone indicators, as well; the schedule will depend upon when data is available for any given site or indicator, and may even vary based on individual indicators.

The following indicator framework for monitoring is based upon the World

Heritage Centre’s List of Factors Affecting the Properties and the buffer zone typology described above, integrating the terminology currently being used by the World Heritage

Centre to track issues at World Heritage sites with the main function of a given site’s buffer zone. The primary threats in the List of Factors Affecting the Property have been grouped into five overall categories of factors likely to require similar types of indicators for tracking, and these have been matched with the buffer zone types proposed above.

The final primary factor on the List of Factors is “Other factor(s)” with no further differentiation or examples, and has been excluded from the framework as it simply represents an option for future issues that are not covered by the existing factors.

When selecting a set of indicators, States Parties should consider threats to the inscribed site’s OUV in conjunction with the buffer zone’s function. The indicator set for a given site should consist of data that the responsible agencies can gather and analyze, particularly if there are multiple administrative units that need to collect and compare the same types of data, and should address each threat identified that relates to the buffer zone’s protective or enhancement capacity. The buffer zone monitoring framework is outlined below with a list of sample indicators corresponding to each of the five framework categories. This list is meant to offer a variety of examples; States

273

Parties will likely choose an overall set with considerably fewer indicators than the total on the list, and may require other indicators not listed that meet the individual needs of the given site and threat more closely. States Parties should also consider that similar threats on the List of Factors may require very different indicators based on the site, for instance, the threat posed by vehicular traffic at Lyon and Vézère Valley, where concerns relate to air pollution and vibrational impact caused by vehicles at each site, respectively. Overall, States Parties can use the buffer zone monitoring framework as a guide to aid in matching threats and buffer zone functions to appropriate types of indicators.

Buffer Zone Monitoring Framework

Category 1 – Development

This category encompasses three of the primary factors in the List of Factors, all having to do with development issues. Included are buildings and development, transportation infrastructure, and utilities or service infrastructure. These are factors that are linked to all forms of physical development, such as urban development and growth in residential, commercial, and industrial sectors; development of tourist facilities and accommodations; issues and needs related to infrastructure and use of all forms of transportation; and issues and needs related to water, energy, and other utility infrastructure.

The factors in this category are among the most likely to relate to visual impact on a World Heritage site or its setting, for example, construction of wind turbines, encroaching development near the boundary of an inscribed site, or installation of cell phone tours or power lines, and will thus include indicators related to the visual aspect of the site and its setting. Some threats related to development are more closely linked

274

to detrimental human action than to visual impact, and so may instead call for a human activity buffer zone and indicators that monitor specific activities. Finally, this category is also closely linked with potential opportunity buffer zones related to development of facilities and infrastructure for both local stakeholders and tourists, and so may be linked to indicators measuring the capacity of the built environment to support local needs.

Sample indicators related to development:

• photographic records of important views (Marshall 2011), viewsheds, alignments, or skylines

• visual impact evaluations submitted with permit applications for new construction

• new construction data, such as number of units, square footage, height

• encroachment of development in the vicinity of the inscribed site (Marshall 2011)

• construction of energy plants, renewable or non-renewable

• number of permits applied for - e.g. construction of housing or wind turbines

• results of permit applications - e.g. number and ratio of approved or denied

• lawsuits related to permits

• vacant commercial, residential, or industrial structure or land plots

• number and proportion of historic structures in need of substantial repair (Marshall 2011)

• rental and purchase cost data

• availability of affordable housing

• availability of land for residential, commercial, or industrial development

• economic indicators to gauge local economic health, e.g. per capita wages or unemployment rate

• total available tourist accommodations - e.g. number of beds or hotels, dining establishments, or transportation capacity

275

• number of tourist accommodations opened, closed, or expanded since previous tally

• total number of available interpretive facilities

• number of interpretive facilities opened, closed, or altered since previous tally

• tourist capacity of accommodations and facilities

• number of tourists served within the buffer zone and the inscribed site

• service staff

• condition of local transit, e.g. roads or railways

• addition or expansion of transit options, e.g. new roads, railways, bus routes, airports

• parking - amount and location

• number of mass transit arrivals and departures - e.g. buses, trains, planes, ships

• availability of water, including potable water

• total water use

• water used for tourist facilities

• improvements or additions to local utility infrastructure

• number, duration, and severity of shortages - e.g. of electricity or water

• energy or water capacity used versus available

Several of these indicators relate to protecting visual aspects of an inscribed site or its setting, tracking views or alignments, proximity of development, height of development. Many of the indicators relate to development and its relationship to the needs of the local populace, for example, water or housing needs. If these needs are unmet, there may be pressure on a site or its buffer zone for new construction or infrastructure; being aware of changing demographics and unmet needs may allow administrators to target areas within a buffer zone to meet those needs. Tracking

276

permitting and lawsuits related to permitting may also reveal trends related to enforcement of regulations and guidelines, as well as possible loopholes or increasing pressure for inappropriate development. Monitoring local needs and economic conditions in both the inscribed site and its setting can reveal dangers related to a changing local economy, for instance, less local ability to engage in conservation or enforcement activities, or increasing development pressure with commercial or industrial expansion. Tracking indicators related to tourism allows a comparison between activity within the inscribed site versus within the buffer zone; for example, the effectiveness of an opportunity buffer zone in dispersing tourists throughout the setting of a World Heritage site experiencing chronic heavy visitation. Monitoring tourism activity and local needs in the area may also ensure that improvements and infrastructure are not being provided to tourists at the expense of the local community.

Category 2 – Resource and Land Use

This category encompasses the three primary factors on the List of Factors that relate to use of local resources, both in terms of exploitation and in terms of traditional practices. Included in this category are the factors biological resource use/modification, physical resource extraction, and social/cultural uses of heritage. The factors in this category are all linked to resource use, including practices like fishing, hunting, farming, forestry, and collection of wild plants; exploitation of natural resources through practices like mining or water extraction; and use of local cultural heritage and land in traditional ways, for example, religious festivals, vernacular architecture, and traditional artisanal practices. In the case of physical resources, there is a distinction between commercial and subsistence extraction, as well as the inclusion of traditional exploitation methods.

277

Many of the secondary factors in this category are closely linked to the function of a human activity buffer zone, and will rely on indicators related to availability and use of local resources as well as local participation in traditional cultural, religious, and subsistence practices. Given the broad nature of these resources, it is also likely that many sites requiring an affiliated elements buffer zone will relate to the factors in this category, and that there may be areas in the buffer zone that help support the inscribed site economically or culturally. Economic indicators may be linked to an opportunity buffer zone if one has been established to encourage economic development or promote traditional economic practices.

Sample indicators related to resource and land use:

• quantity of resources harvested or extracted for commercial or subsistence purposes

• number of individuals participating in harvesting or extracting

• number of permits applied for and issued for legal harvest or extraction

• earnings from commercial harvesting or extraction

• destination of earnings from commercial harvest or extraction

• area of land used for or dedicated to harvest or extraction

• number and breeds of livestock

• mortality rate and cause among livestock

• acreage of pasture or agricultural land

• amount and type of crops cultivated

• amount and causes of crop loss

• tally of unharvested biological resources - e.g. wild plant or animal species

• prevalence of health problems associated with harvest or extraction practices

278

• quantity of resources required for local consumption versus availability

• local demographics - e.g. practitioners of traditional religions or age distribution data

• frequency and timing of traditional social events - e.g. festivals, performances, or rituals

• number of traditional structures in use, vacant, newly constructed

• instances of value conflict between incoming cultural groups and traditional inhabitants

• legal cases - e.g. seeking to protect traditional use rights or seeking to assert private ownership

• number of individuals participating in traditional cultural or economic practices

• land and resources available for traditional cultural or economic practices

• dispersal of traditional structures or communities - e.g. location of vernacular houses

• incidents of tourist disruptions to traditional cultural or religious practices

• funds invested in preserving and transmitting traditional knowledge

Many of these indicators relate to the specifics of harvesting or extracting resources, as it is likely useful to monitor remaining availability of resources, amount being exploited, and comparing commercial versus subsistence resource or land use to ensure that local needs are being met and resources are not being over-harvested.

There may also be negative side-effects to some practices, for instance, if modern commercial practices are dangerous to health and safety. Tracking productivity of traditional agricultural practices and general health of local crops and livestock may allow the identification of threats to traditional breeds or crop varieties. Demographic changes in the area may also indicate loss of local participants in traditional cultural pathways, or an increase in outsiders who are likely to have different practices, land use

279

patterns, or who may not value local heritage features. Tracking legal disputes over land

use and practices may be helpful in identifying conflicts between long-term residents

and newcomers, or threats to availability of land and resources for traditional practices.

Monitoring may also reveal positive trends related to increases in participation in

traditional activities that relate to the inscribed site, for example, religious or artisanal

practices, which may in turn suggest more resources need to be devoted to supporting

these activities or that there will be more opportunities to protect related heritage

features within the inscribed site.

Category 3 – Environmental Conditions

This category encompasses four primary factors on the List of Factors that relate to physical and natural conditions and issues at a site and its surroundings. Included in the category are local conditions affecting physical fabric, climate change and severe weather events, sudden ecological or geological events, and invasive/alien species or hyper-abundant species. The factors in this category all relate to the condition of the physical environment of a site and its setting, including local climatic conditions and pests; severe weather, flooding, drought, climate change, and impacts of climate change; natural disasters like earthquakes, wild fires, and volcanic eruption; and changes to a site’s environment such as erosion, siltation, invasive species, or ecological imbalance.

All of the factors in this category relate to environmental buffer zones. In some

cases, a buffer zone may not be an effective tool in combating threats posed by these

factors, particularly if they are extremely large-scale in scope, such as climate change.

However, efforts related to mitigating the impact of severe events or the local effects of

climate change may occur in some buffer zones. In these cases, indicators may be

280

useful in gauging the efficacy of measures taken to protect an inscribed site from the effects of events like floods or tsunamis. In other cases, monitoring in the buffer zone may aid in tracking pests and invasive species, or in tracking frequency or severity of climatic and environmental events that sometimes occur outside an inscribed site, but if frequency were to increase, so would the likelihood of direct impact on the World

Heritage site. Indicators to track prevailing climatic and environmental conditions in the buffer zone may also be necessary, for example, in order to ensure sufficient habitat exists for keystone species or to evaluate the specific impacts of climate change on the region.

Sample indicators related to environmental conditions:

• measures of climatic conditions - e.g. temperature ranges, rainfall, or humidity

• species of pests or parasitic micro-organisms affecting native plants or animals

• geographic range of pests or parasitic micro-organisms

• prevalence of pests or parasitic micro-organisms

• invasive species - e.g. prevalence, range, or areas and species impacted

• intentional importation of non-native species - e.g. sources or quantity

• number, duration, and cost of eradiation programs

• prevalence and range of native species

• number, duration, and severity of weather events - e.g. storms, drought, or flooding

• cost or other impact of severe weather events

• land area experiencing desertification

• oceanic water conditions - e.g. p.H, temperature, or circulation patterns

• number and percent of structures without adequate protective features - e.g. seismic reinforcement

281

• programs or plans to increase protective features of private or public facilities

• number of public and heritage sites with and without disaster preparedness plans

• frequency of modern or traditional disaster management strategies - e.g. controlled burns

• loss of landscape features offering protection from severe events - e.g. tree removal

Many of these indicators relate to monitoring of general climatic and environmental conditions over time. This may be helpful in identifying changes that will impact an inscribed site, and is especially important in buffer zones surrounding smaller

World Heritage sites, where monitoring changes within the site may not reveal broader trends as easily. For example, changes in average temperature, rainfall, or humidity may have corresponding impacts on physical structures, but may also impact crops that can be grown or pests and invasive species entering an area. Changes to soil or water levels in a buffer zone may also impact an affiliated elements buffer zone, for example, by damaging unexcavated archaeological remains. Trends in severe weather and geological events should also be tracked, both to identify increases or changes in average severity, and to identify whether or not the local community is sufficiently prepared to prevent as much damage as possible and then to recover from damage afterward. Some severe events are likely to have been persistent problems throughout the past, for instance, earthquakes, flooding, or wild fires, and local communities may have traditional practices for mitigating these dangers; if these practices begin to wane, a State Party must consider whether it is possible to revive them or, if necessary, replace them with modern strategies.

282

Category 4 – Negative Human Action

This category encompasses two primary factors on the List of Factors that relate to negative human activity. Included in this category are the factors pollution and other human activities. All of the secondary factors in this category relate to human actions that result in damage to a site or its setting, including all forms of pollution, solid waste practices, illegal activities like looting or poaching, intentional damage to heritage like vandalism or arson, and activities linked to human conflict like war or civil unrest. This is the only category that includes no potentially positive factors.

This category is most closely linked with the function of human activity buffer zones. Indicators for monitoring buffer zones linked to these issues will most likely take two forms – identifying inappropriate activity and identifying the causes of negative impacts. Impact on a World Heritage site due to war, terrorism, or civil unrest seems unlikely to be mitigated through the use of a buffer zone or regulations within a buffer zone, although it is possible such activity might still be monitored within an inscribed site and its buffer zone.

Sample indicators related to negative human action:

• soil, water, and air quality

• amount of solid waste produced

• number, capacity, and location of landfills or other solid waste facilities

• classification of lighting systems - e.g. lighting that reduces light pollution

• changes in wildlife range, prevalence, or behavior linked to light pollution or other human activity

• number and impact of contamination events - e.g. oil spills

• number of violations of environmental regulations

283

• instances of pollution due to legal behavior

• records of illegal activity - e.g. looting, unauthorized mining, or violent crime

• incidents of intentional damage to heritage sites - e.g. arson or vandalism

• incidents of accidental damage to heritage sites - e.g. broken windows due to nearby construction

• location, severity, and cost to repair intentional or accidental damage to heritage sites

• damage and cost to repair due to conflict - e.g. armed conflict, civil unrest, or terrorism

• presence of structures with military uses within a buffer zone during armed conflict

Many of the indicators related to negative human action are similar to issues monitored for environmental impact or resource use, but are intended to reveal unanticipated pollutants or illegal activity. Discovery of contaminants may mean that existing regulations are inadequate, or that enforcement is insufficient; likewise, discovery of illegal behaviors suggests that enforcement is either lax or there are not enough resources devoted to it. Thus it is likely that results of many of these indicators would require either stricter regulations or stricter enforcement, although it is possible that problems like looting or inappropriate waste disposal may be solved through educational programs, as well.

Category 5 – Administrative Issues

This category relates specifically to the primary factor management and institutional factors. This category includes secondary factors related to governance and management, legislative and regulatory capacity, human and financial resources, and the impact of monitoring activity. Some of these factors may be mitigated through the use of an administrative buffer zone to aid in coordinating and managing conservation

284

and monitoring activity within a region. A buffer zone is unlikely to aid in dealing with issues related to other factors in this category. However, it is worth noting that two of the secondary factors deal specifically with high and low impact research and monitoring issues, for example, taking water samples versus use of destructive sampling techniques on historic resources, which should certainly be taken into consideration for any monitoring plan and collection of data for indicators.

Sample indicators related to administrative issues

• addition, removal, or changes to conservation laws and regulation

• area covered by management plan

• management activity - e.g. meetings between administrative units, percentage participating

• stakeholder input - e.g. opportunities for to participate, suggestions and concerns expressed

• financial resources for management and conservation

• human resources for management and conservation

• current monitoring activity within the area

• salvage archaeology - e.g. test pits, remains found, remains related to OUV

Indicators of this nature are intended to aid States Parties in tracking whether or not administrative units, agencies, and locals are cooperating effectively to manage and maintain a World Heritage site and its setting. If key stakeholders are not participating in the process, management is unlikely to be effective. Likewise, if available human and financial resources are insufficient, proper maintenance will be difficult to achieve.

States Parties may also need to revisit monitoring procedures over time, ensuring that indicators are being tracked for each threat identified, and that recording and analysis are consistent over time.

285

Potential Indicators for Monitoring the French Case Studies

The following section discusses monitoring options for the French case studies

examined in this research. Both the buffer zone typology and the indicator framework

are used to make suggestions for types of indicators that would be helpful for monitoring

each site. In most instances, suggestions are for a general type or set of indicators, as

the implementation of specific indicators must also take into account data available to

the State Party and site managers.

Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay

The most urgent threat recently experienced at Mont-Saint-Michel is the

construction of wind turbines visible from the Mont. The State Party has created an area

of landscape influence that serves the same purpose as a visual buffer zone by

prohibiting the construction of wind turbines within areas that are visible from the Mont

(Castel-Branco and Sorosh-Wali 2011). Ideally, both the area of landscape influence and the existing buffer zone should be monitored for factors related to the development category of the indicator framework, specifically tracking applications for, construction of, and lawsuits related to construction of wind farms and other large-scale development that could potentially impact the World Heritage site. As the many communes within both the buffer zone and area of landscape influence must be coordinated, administrative indicators should also be tracked to determine overall participation within both zones and effectiveness of the measures in place.

The existing buffer zone also serves an environmental function in terms of reducing siltation, particularly human-driven siltation, in the Bay. Indicators related to sediment in the water, accumulation of sediment, dispersal of sediment, and accumulation or erosion of sediment along the coast should be monitored to evaluate

286

the effectiveness of the measures in place to restore the maritime character of the Mont.

In addition, tidal activity should be monitored, measuring the frequency and duration of tides that completely surround the Mont.

Finally, the State Party is actively pursuing the enhancement of the site through activity in the property’s landscape setting related to both development and resource and land use categories of the indicator framework. The primary means of enhancement is by promoting more options and interpretation for tourists in the Mont’s setting. Monitoring of the opportunity function of the buffer zone should include indicators to track facilities for tourists, and compare use of tourist facilities in the buffer zone with visitation inside the World Heritage site to see whether tourists are being dispersed through the landscape and reducing pressure on the inscribed site. The State

Party also intends to promote the traditional fishing and livestock activities in the area, so indicators related to harvests, participants, and land and sea areas devoted to traditional practices should be monitored in both the buffer zone and within the inscribed site.

Palace and Park of Versailles

The existing buffer zone of Versailles functions as an administrative buffer zone, coordinating two protective zones, both of which relate to visual factors in the development category. Indicators should relate to new and proposed construction, particularly within the urbanized area of the buffer zone, and should consider scale and materials of new structures to ensure compatibility with the palace. Indicators within the rural areas should track land use patterns as well as any development to ensure the agricultural and forest character of the buffer zone is preserved.

287

Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley

The primary buffer zones recommended in this research for Vézère Valley are environment or human activity buffer zones around each serial site. The environment buffer zones would relate to the environmental conditions factor, specifically to forest conditions, wild fire prevention, and flooding. In addition to indicators related to flood incidents, waterways, and flood control, indicators should track any wild fire activity and damage, as well as forest management related to preventing fires or damage to subterranean sites. The human activity buffer zones would correspond to the development category of indicators, specifically to road infrastructure in terms of both vehicular use patterns and road work. These indicators would need to be coordinated with monitoring within the World Heritage site, both in terms of forestry and roadway activity and in terms of checking for damage related to forest management or vehicular vibrations.

The secondary buffer zone proposed for Vézère Valley would serve as both an affiliated elements and monitoring buffer zone related to both negative human action factors and administrative factors. The larger setting of Vézère Valley should be monitored for the discovery of caves and archaeological deposits related to the site’s

OUV, in which case changes to the site’s boundary may eventually be considered.

Monitoring of the setting for agricultural contaminants and their sources should also be coordinated with monitoring for contaminated water within inscribed caves as well as for the presence or increase of microbial growths known to be encouraged by those contaminants. If levels change or new microbial outbreaks are discovered, it may prove necessary to adjust regulations on agricultural activity within the site’s setting.

288

Historic Site of Lyons

Although Lyon appears to be an excellent candidate for a site that currently does not need a buffer zone, it would be worthwhile to coordinate monitoring of the World

Heritage site and the larger metropolitan area for air pollution and vehicular traffic, as well as activity related to flooding or flood prevention. Should existing measures and regulations prove ineffective, a buffer zone might be considered.

Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs

The setting of Provins is currently experiencing issues with development factors, particularly in relation to visual impact on the setting of the Upper Town and its ramparts. Indicators in the buffer zone should certainly track new construction and permitting activity, but also needs within the overall commune in terms of housing, commercial, and industrial uses. This will ensure that local representatives can identify appropriate areas for development that will meet needs if demographics and conditions within the commune change.

The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape

The proposed environmental buffer zone in the western, forested area of the

Causses and the proposed affiliated elements buffer zone to the southeast of the

Cévennes encompassing the Plain of Languedoc represent differentiated zones within a larger administrative and opportunity buffer zone that would constitute an expansion of the existing buffer zone. The environmental buffer zone would relate specifically to indicators monitoring the forest in terms of species, range, and fire prevention. The affiliated elements buffer zone should be monitored using indicators related to the agro- pastoral practices there that support the inscribed site, tracking such information as land available for winter pasture, ownership of such land, and number of participating

289

shepherds and livestock. The overall administrative and opportunity buffer zone relates to both the administrative and development categories, including monitoring of coordination between the many communes and zones of the inscribed site and buffer zone, as well as indicators related to wind farm construction and areas designated for future wind farm construction.

290

CHAPTER 16 CONCLUSIONS

The 1972 World Heritage Convention is an international treaty whose goals

include the conservation of heritage sites worldwide and the promotion of peace and

international cooperation by protecting that heritage. The World Heritage List is an

important component of the World Heritage program, comprising sites that have been

recognized as having value for all of humanity and whose protection must be ensured

both by the State Party they belong to and through international cooperative efforts, if

necessary. While there are many tools available for safeguarding heritage sites, one tool that has been of increasing interest in recent years is the buffer zone, both because the World Heritage Committee began to require site nominations to include a buffer zone and because many sites on the World Heritage List have been under threat due to activity in their surroundings. While buffer zones do not share a site’s outstanding universal value (OUV), they are intended to protect it from external threats, including threats to a site’s setting that would prove detrimental to the inscribed site.

The literature suggests that the creation of a buffer zone should follow a flexible

approach rather than a set of specific and standard rules (Stovel 2009; UNESCO World

Heritage Centre 2009b). This research has elaborated on both ideas in the buffer zone literature and the steps outlined in the UNESCO World Heritage Centre manual to assist

States Parties in preparing nominations. Once the site’s OUV and external factors that may threaten it have been determined and studied, a State Party should have the

information necessary to decide whether or not a buffer zone is an appropriate

protective tool and, if so, how to implement it. The buffer zone typology proposed in this

research is an aid for States Parties to use in visualizing external threats to a site, how

291

they relate to the site’s setting, and thus the function any buffer zone or set of buffer zones must fulfill. By explicitly considering the function a buffer zone must fulfill, a State

Party will be able to identify both the geographic area a buffer zone must encompass to be effective, as well as which available regulatory or management measures must apply within that area. This may result in the need for multiple buffer zones, each fulfilling a distinct purpose; a coordinated buffer zone with differentiated areas; or a single buffer zone that deals with all identified external threats, allowing a State Party flexibility for different issues and options at any given site.

The literature has also suggested that a different approach for new sites, sites with a buffer zone, and sites inscribed without a buffer zone may be necessary (Stovel

2009). The findings of this research suggest that these three circumstances can be treated in much the same way in most instances, with sites that are already inscribed having the potential advantage of greater knowledge of the site’s OUV, relationship with its setting, external threats, and weaknesses of its buffer zone. The other main difference identified in the course of this research is the treatment of sites inscribed on the World Heritage List in the earliest years of the program; these sites are more likely to have inconsistencies in the definition of their boundaries and OUV, which in most cases would need to be addressed prior to adding or altering a buffer zone.

There has also been some concern in the literature about whether or not buffer zones are necessary at all (de Wit 2006) or if they might actually diminish protection at an inscribed site (Turner 2009). It is important to note that buffer zones are one tool among many for achieving protection of a World Heritage site; a buffer zone alone will not safeguard a site, and in some cases may be unnecessary. Indeed, any buffer zone

292

that would not enhance protection of the inscribed site should not be implemented, whether because other measures are already sufficient or in particular if the buffer zone would be detrimental to the World Heritage site in some way. However, the fact that a buffer zone may not be necessary at all sites should not be taken to mean that such protection is never necessary, but simply that careful analysis and subsequent monitoring must be undertaken to avoid the creation of a buffer zone that would diminish protection of the inscribed site.

Furthermore, the possibility of a buffer zone being ineffective to mitigate threats outside its boundaries is no more indicative that buffer zones should always be eschewed than that conservation regulations on an inscribed site being unable to stop threats to a site’s setting means that those regulations should be done away with. A

State Party must consider all tools available and select the most appropriate set to achieve coordinated protection. For example, climate change is a significant threat that has already begun affecting heritage sites around the world, with impacts related to rising sea levels, severe weather events, flooding, and wild fires. While a buffer zone is unlikely to be effective in preventing climate change on a global scale, it is an option that may be able to play a role at mitigating local impact at some sites. Where increased risk of flooding or wild fires has been identified, for instance, the setting of some sites may be an ideal area to implement safeguards. At other sites, local impacts may first be detected in the areas around a World Heritage site, for example shifting coastlines and erosion or changing prevalence of local or invasive species. For these reasons, it is important to implement monitoring in the setting of a site, both to identify threats as they develop and to have a thorough understanding of the local environmental conditions

293

and how they may be changing, allowing earlier reaction to problems than if no off-site monitoring were to occur.

As discussed in the literature and in this research, buffer zones are potentially complex, and may require a host of tools and strategies to aid in collaboration, planning, and implementation over large areas with varied characteristics and threats. Tools like

GIS will undoubtedly prove invaluable to professionals in analyzing a site’s setting in terms of features and threats, as well as considering possible options for protection.

Visualizing potential impacts may be particularly important in some cases, and the assistance that drafting and other visualization tools, for example, the CommunityViz extension for GIS, may be needed to help both professionals and local stakeholders examine the options and interactions in a meaningful way. A geodesign approach would also be appropriate in many instances, emphasizing collaboration in order to establish a geographical study area, analyze this area, and determine the best options for achieving protective goals.

Both the buffer zone literature and the Xi’an Declaration suggest the need for monitoring of a site’s setting (ICOMOS 2005; Stovel 2009). This research has proposed an indicator framework based on the List of Factors used by the World Heritage Centre in tracking threats identified at World Heritage sites. States Parties also use the List of

Factors when participating in periodic reporting, making this a logical starting point for a framework to organize indicators related to monitoring both inscribed sites and their buffer zones. By considering the functions presented in the buffer zone typology as well as the List of Factors, States Parties should select indicators that will allow evaluation of a buffer zone’s efficacy over time.

294

One limitation of this research is that there was no opportunity to examine the effectiveness of a buffer zone by studying it before and after implementation. Indeed, as pointed out in the literature, there has been no study evaluating the effectiveness of a buffer zone (Stovel 2009). There is evidence in the form of case studies both in the literature and in this research that some buffer zones are currently or have recently been ineffective, some sites without buffer zones are experiencing issues in their setting or due to external threats, and there are sites both with and without buffer zones that are adequately protected. The indicator framework proposed in this research for monitoring buffer zones would allow the evaluation of a site and its setting before and after a buffer zone is implemented. Monitoring sites’ settings would also allow comparison between sites with similar external threats but with different buffer zone conditions – for example, no buffer zone, a long-established buffer zone, or a recently implemented buffer zone.

Another limitation of this research is that in-depth analysis of cases was limited to six cultural World Heritage sites out of 39 total sites in a single nation in Europe. With over 1,000 sites in 163 countries on the World Heritage List, there is a great diversity of sites, and it is impossible for a small set of cases to perfectly represent all of the unique conditions and requirements. Likewise, the regulatory and management options available within each State Party vary greatly, so some States Parties may find buffer zones difficult to implement with existing options. The recommendations in this research are intended to encourage States Parties to consider both the needs of their heritage sites and their options for meeting those needs, focusing on the function of buffer zones rather than on narrow rules or legislative approaches.

295

Future research focusing on sites, approaches, and strategies in other nations, particularly those in regions other than Europe, would allow a more comprehensive understanding of how buffer zones can be effectively implemented. The indicator framework proposed in this study also allows the opportunity to build upon existing case studies with the addition of research evaluating the effectiveness of buffer zones, both before and after implementation and versus other forms of protection or regulations.

Future research could also examine whether a single buffer zone that encompasses multiple functions or a series of buffer zones is more effective, should States Parties choose to implement multiple buffer zones at a single site. The approach to creating or modifying a buffer zone proposed in this research could be applied to sites with existing buffer zones, particularly sites experiencing issues in their setting, in order to evaluate strategies and success in altering and improving a buffer zone. Examination of transnational sites and the best approach for creating buffer zones for sites in multiple nations with varied legislation would also be worthwhile. Studies on any of these topics would be extremely useful both in improving existing recommendations regarding creation and implementation of buffer zones and in determining which forms of protection might be best combined with buffer zones or used instead of buffer zones.

296

APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF WORLD HERITAGE TERMS

Advisory Body (see also IUCN, ICOMOS, ICCROM) – There are three Advisory Bodies that provide expert support to the World Heritage Committee and States Parties. These are IUCN, handling requests and duties related to natural conservation; ICOMOS, handling requests and duties related to cultural conservation; and ICCROM, handling requests and duties related to museums and cultural conservation training and education. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015a) buffer zone – A zone around a World Heritage site that is not part of the inscribed site but acts to protect the site. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a)

Bureau of the World Heritage Committee (see also World Heritage Committee and Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage) – A group of seven members chosen from among the current delegates to the World Heritage Committee, and which is responsible for the coordination of Committee activities. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015p) criteria (see also outstanding universal value) – The ten criteria by which the World Heritage Committee denotes the outstanding universal value of a World Heritage site. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a) decision not to inscribe (see also deferral, referral, and withdrawal) – One of the three options other than inscription that the World Heritage Committee may take when making a decision on a nomination to the World Heritage List. If the Committee makes this decision, the site may not be nominated again “except in exceptional circumstances” (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a:40). deferral (see also referral, decision not to inscribe, and withdrawal) – One of three options other than inscription that the World Heritage Committee may take when making a decision on a nomination to the World Heritage List. A deferral sends the nomination back to the State Party for in-depth elaboration. If the State Party decides to resubmit the nomination, it will be considered a new nomination for the purposes of determining the timetable for submission and how many sites the State Party may nominate that year. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a) delisting – The World Heritage can remove a site from the World Heritage List if a man- made threat to the OUV of the site remains unaddressed by the State Party. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a) expert evaluation – ICOMOS and IUCN are charged with selecting appropriate experts to evaluate cultural and natural nominations to the World Heritage List. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015a)

ICCROM – The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property was created by UNESCO to promote cultural conservation through

297

training and education, and is actively involved in creating training material and promoting conservation research. (ICCROM 2015)

ICOMOS – The International Council on Monuments and Sites, the Advisory Body tasked with providing expert assistance to the World Heritage Committee and States Parties in matters of cultural conservation. ICOMOS evaluates all cultural nominations to the World Heritage List, reporting its findings to the World Heritage Committee at the annual Committee Session. ICOMOS is also involved in reactive monitoring missions. (ICOMOS 2015a)

ICOMOS-ICLAFI – The ICOMOS International Committee on Legal, Administrative and Financial Issues, comprised of experts whose members hold meetings and promote research and conservation in the field of conservation law, administration, and finance. (ICOMOS 2015b)

ICOMOS-IFLA – The ICOMOS International Committee on Cultural Landscapes, comprised of experts whose members hold meetings and promote research and conservation in the field of cultural landscapes. (ICOMOS 2015b) inscribed site – A site that has been nominated by the State Party in which it is located and then approved for inclusion on the World Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee.

Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (see also World Heritage Committee and Bureau of the World Heritage Committee) – The formal name of the World Heritage Committee. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a)

IUCN – In its role as Advisory Body, the International Union for Conservation of Nature is tasked with providing expert assistance to the World Heritage Committee and States Parties in matters of natural conservation. IUCN evaluates all natural nominations to the World Heritage List, reporting its findings to the World Heritage Committee at the annual Committee Session. IUCN is also involved in reactive monitoring missions. (IUCN 2014)

List of World Heritage in Danger – A threatened cultural World Heritage site can be entered onto the List of World Heritage in Danger when it meets at least two of the ten criteria of threats to a cultural site listed in the Operational Guidelines, with an effort by the World Heritage Committee to work with the State Party to mitigate the threat to the site. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a)

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention – Detailed instructions for States Parties participating in the World Heritage Convention as well as for the World Heritage Committee in implementing the Convention. The Operational Guidelines are updated at the discretion of the World Heritage Committee. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a)

Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) – Defined in the Operational Guidelines as “cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries

298

and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity.” (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a:14)

Periodic Reporting –One cycle of periodic reporting lasts six years, with four regions – Arab States, Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean – reporting sequentially during the first four years, and the final region, Europe and North America, reporting during the final two years of the cycle. States Parties collaborate with other nations in their region and produce reports on their World Heritage sites, covering such topics as state of conservation, educational outreach, protective legislation, and problems at the sites. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015i) reactive monitoring – Reactive monitoring is undertaken when there is a threat to a World Heritage site; UNESCO and Advisory Body representatives work with representatives from the State Party to prepare a report on the issue and suggestions for conservation efforts. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015l) referral (see also deferral, decision not to inscribe, and withdrawal) – One of three options other than inscription that the World Heritage Committee may take when making a decision on a nomination to the World Heritage List. A referral sends the nomination back to the State Party for further elaboration. The State Party may submit the required additional material within the next three years and it will not be considered a new nomination. After that point, it will be considered a new nomination for the purposes of determining the timetable for submission and how many sites the State Party may nominate that year. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a) serial site – A World Heritage property comprised of two or more discrete components with discontinuous boundaries. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a) state of conservation report – A report submitted to the World Heritage Committee detailing the conservation status of a specific issue or issues at a World Heritage site, or a summary of a conservation report by the World Heritage Committee.

State Party – A nation that has ratified the 1972 World Heritage Convention.

Statement of OUV – This is a statement describing the OUV of a World Heritage site, including the inscription criteria, information on the site’s authenticity and integrity, a brief description of the site’s management and protection, and is considered by the World Heritage Committee to be the grounds for managing and protecting the site. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a)

Tentative List – A list of potential sites to nominate to the World Heritage List. Each State Party submits a tentative list to the World Heritage Committee, and a site that is not on the tentative list cannot be nominated. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a) transnational site – A World Heritage property located in at least two nations; it may span the boundary of two or more nations or it may have two or more discrete serial components in more than one nation. (Marshall 2011)

299

UNESCO World Heritage Centre – The Centre is the unit within UNESCO that maintains the everyday management of the World Heritage Convention and the World Heritage List. It also provides assistance to States Parties regarding the nomination process and conservation after inscription. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015o) withdrawal (see also deferral, referral, and decision not to inscribe) – A State Party may choose to withdraw a nomination to the World Heritage List at any point in the nomination process before the Committee has made a decision on the site. (UNESCO World Heritage Committee 2013a)

World Heritage Committee (see also Bureau of the World Heritage Committee and Intergovernmental Committee for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage) – A committee comprised of rotating delegates from 21 nations that are signatories to the World Heritage Convention. The committee meets annually to vote on nominations to the World Heritage List, and also makes requests regarding conservation activities, reactive monitoring missions, research by Advisory Bodies. The committee also makes decisions regarding changes to the Operational Guidelines, delisting sites, funding for conservation activities, and adding sites to the List of World Heritage in Danger. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015p)

World Heritage Committee Session – The annual meeting of the World Heritage Committee at which it dispenses its duties. The committee decides on nominations to the World Heritage List at this meeting. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015p)

World Heritage Convention of 1972 – An international convention promoting conservation of natural and cultural heritage as a means of furthering world peace. Nations that ratify this convention are eligible to submit nominations to the World Heritage List and may also be eligible for conservation funding. (UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2015q)

World Heritage List – A list of cultural and natural sites inscribed by the World Heritage Committee on the basis of their outstanding universal value. (UNESCO 1972)

World Heritage site (inscribed site, World Heritage property) – A site that has been nominated by the State Party in which it is located and then approved for inclusion on the World Heritage List by the World Heritage Committee.

300

APPENDIX B CULTURAL CRITERIA IN THE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORLD HERITAGE CONVENTION

(i) represent a masterpiece of human creative genius;

(ii) exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design;

(iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared;

(iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history;

(v) be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change;

(vi) be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria)

Direct text from the 2013 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World

Heritage Convention, pages 21 to 22, section 11.D paragraph 77 (UNESCO World

Heritage Committee 2013a).

301

APPENDIX C TYPOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FROM THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST: FILLING THE GAPS – AN ACTION PLAN FOR THE FUTURE

Figure C-1. Typological framework for categorizing cultural World Heritage sites. (Jukko, et al. 2005)

302

APPENDIX D LIST OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE PROPERTIES

The list in this appendix is the List of Factors Affecting the Properties on the

UNESCO World Heritage Centre website (http://whc.unesco.org/en/factors/) (UNESCO

World Heritage Centre 2015f).

1. Buildings and Development Housing For example: Urban high rise/urban sprawl Encroachment/changes to skyline etc. Commercial development For example: Skyscrapers Large shopping malls Encroachment/changes to skyline etc. Industrial areas For example: Individual factories Industrial areas/parks Encroachment/changes to skyline etc. Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure For example: Major accommodation and associated infrastructure (hotels, restaurants, golf courses, ski resorts, etc.) Major/permanent high cost tourism facilities (pontoons, jetties, observatories, cable cars, chalets, fully serviced camping areas, etc.) Interpretative and visitation facilities For example: Visitor interpretive facilities (visitor centre, site museum, etc.) Signage etc. Trail hardening, (trail markers etc.) Information booths etc. Minor picnic facilities Minor camping areas Moorings/marker buoys

2. Transportation Infrastructure Ground transport infrastructure For example: Roads Car parks Railways, including easements

303

Transport depots Air transport infrastructure For example: Airports Airstrips Marine transport infrastructure For example: Harbour & port facilities Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure For example: Effects of vehicle traffic on roadways Effects of shipping traffic in shipping routes Effects of air traffic Underground transport infrastructure

3. Utilities or Service Infrastructure Developments in relation to infrastructure for energy utilities (i.e. gas, electricity and water) and other service requirements Water infrastructure For example: Dams Locks Weirs Water tanks Pumping stations Introduction of new systems/ infrastructure Renewable energy facilities For example: Thermal Wave Solar Wind Non-renewable energy facilities For example: Nuclear power plants Coal power plants Oil/gas facilities Localised utilities For example: Incinerators Cell phone towers Sewerage works Microwave/TV/radio towers Major linear utilities For example: Power lines/easements

304

Pipelines etc. Channels

4. Pollution All types of pollution (residential or commercial) as well as garbage, solid waste. Pollution of marine waters For example: Ocean dumping Bilge water discharge Solid debris in marine environments Ground water pollution For example: Oil/chemical spills Industrial effluent Agricultural runoff Household sewage/waste Acid sulphate soils Effluent discharge Mine/tailings runoff Surface water pollution For example: Acid rain Mine/tailings runoff Agricultural runoff Air pollution For example: Excessive smoke or other airborne particulates Dust Local effects of emissions from use of fossil fuels Solid waste For example: Mine tailings Litter Industrial waste Household rubbish Input of excess energy For example: Any inputs of heat and light that disturb ecosystems including inappropriate urban lighting, heat pollution, etc.

5. Biological resource use/modification The collecting/harvesting of wild plants and animals (forestry, fishing, hunting and gathering) and harvesting domesticated species (silviculture, agriculture and aquaculture) Fishing/collecting aquatic resources For example:

305

Trawling Netting Line fishing Game fishing Collection/harvest fisheries Spearfishing By-catch/incidental take issues Aquaculture For example: Marine Freshwater aquaculture Land conversion For example: Agriculture (crops and livestock) Rural Forestry Livestock farming/grazing of domesticated animals For example: Grazing on farms or by pastoral groups Crop production For example: Deep ploughing New crops Intensification of planted agriculture Traditional crops Traditional systems Gardening Commercial wild plant collection For example: Pharmaceutical trade Medicinal plants Fodder collection Thatching Mushrooms Bulbs etc. Subsistence wild plant collection Use this question for Indigenous subsistence hunting, gathering and collecting, i.e. not for economic benefit, for example: Food plants Medicinal plants Fodder collection Thatching Mushrooms Bulbs etc. Commercial hunting For example:

306

Bush meat trade Organised game hunting Subsistence hunting Subsistence, i.e. not for economic benefit, hunting. Use “Indigenous hunting, gathering and collecting” to indicate factors relating specifically to Indigenous hunting, gathering and collecting Forestry /wood production For example: Logging Pulp production All silvicultural operations Restoration/regeneration Sustainable wood harvesting

6. Physical resource extraction If illegal see “Other human activities” Mining Quarrying For example: Rock Sand Aggregates Oil and gas Water extraction

7. Local conditions affecting physical fabric Environmental or biological factors that promote or contribute to deterioration processes of the fabric of heritage sites. Since effects of decay cannot be attributed to a single factor, consider all elements. Use “Air pollution” for air pollution. Use “Climate change and severe weather events” for severe weather, including flooding. For tourism activities “Impacts of tourism/visitor/recreation”. Wind For example: Erosion Vibration Relative humidity Temperature Radiation/light Dust Water (Rain/Water table) Pests Micro-organisms

307

8. Social/cultural uses of heritage Social factors that contribute to deterioration processes of the fabric of heritage sites. Some uses might have a positive impact as they enhance certain values (e.g. ritual, religious) while others might compromise ascribed values and could lead to the deterioration of the heritage site. Use “Major visitor accommodation and associated infrastructure” and “Interpretative and visitation facilities” for impacts of tourism infrastructure and tourism activities in “Impacts of tourism/visitor/recreation”. Ritual/spiritual/religious and associative uses For example: Ritual/spiritual/religious uses and associations Festivals/performances Society's valuing of heritage For example: Changes in values leading to new uses of heritage resources Expansions of / additions to current uses of heritage resources Conflicting values Abandonment Indigenous hunting, gathering and collecting Changes in traditional ways of life and knowledge system For example: Loss of traditional knowledge and practices linked to heritage Identity, social cohesion, changes in local population and community For example: Changes to identity and social cohesion Changes in livelihoods Migration to or from site Changes in local population and community Impacts of tourism/visitor/recreation For example: Inappropriate/non-existent interpretation (not an impact) High levels of visitation Increase of vendors inside/outside site Building community support, sustainable livelihoods

9. Other human activities Note Use “Social/cultural uses of heritage” for impacts on local communities Illegal activities For example: Illegal extraction of biological resources (i.e. poaching) Blast fishing, cyanide fishing Illegal extraction of geological resources (mining/fossils) Illegal trade Illegal occupation of space Illegal excavations Illegal construction

308

Looting Theft Treasure hunting Ghost nets (discarded fishing gear) Deliberate destruction of heritage For example: Vandalism Graffiti Politically motivated acts Arson Military training War Terrorism Civil unrest

10. Climate change and severe weather events Storms For example: Tornadoes Hurricanes/cyclones Gales Hail damage Lightning strikes River/stream overflows Extreme tides Flooding Drought Desertification Changes to oceanic waters For example: Changes to water flow and circulation patterns at local, regional or global scale Changes to pH Changes to temperature Temperature change Other climate change impacts

11. Sudden ecological or geological events Volcanic eruption Earthquake Tsunami/tidal wave Avalanche / landslide Erosion and siltation/deposition Fire (wildfires) For example: Altered fire regimes High impact fire suppression activities

309

Lightning strikes For human-induced fires, see “Other threats” below

12. Invasive/alien species or hyper-abundant species Translocated species For example: Fish stocking Inappropriate plantings Introduced soil etc. Dieback due to pathogens Invasive/alien terrestrial species For example: Weed Feral animal Rodent Insect pest Bird pest Disease/parasite Micro-organism Invasive / alien freshwater species For example: Weeds Invertebrate pests Fish pests Diseases/parasites Micro-organisms Invasive/alien marine species For example: Weeds Invertebrate pests Fish pests Diseases/parasites Micro-organisms Hyper-abundant species Naturally occurring species impacting ecosystem by virtue of ecological imbalance Modified genetic material

13. Management and institutional factors Management System/Management Plan Legal framework Low impact research/monitoring activities For example: Visitor surveys Water sampling Non-extractive surveys

310

In-situ surveys Governance High impact research/monitoring activities For example: Sampling using destructive techniques Research involving removal of features or species (i.e. extraction) Management activities Financial resources Human resources

14. Other factor(s) Any additional factor not already covered by the list above.

311

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adlercreutz, Thomas 2006 The World Heritage Convention, Buffer Zones and Sweden. The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone, Hiroshima, Japan, 2006.

Alberts, Heike C., and Helen D. Hazen 2010 Maintaining Authenticity and Integrity at Cultural World Heritage Sites. The Geographical Review 100(1):56-73.

Antolović, Jadran 2006 World Cultural Heritage and the Buffer Zone - Croatian Experience. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28-29.

Araoz, Gustavo 2008 Heritage Classifications and the Need to Adjust Them to Emerging Paradigms: The United States Experience. In Values and Criteria in Heritage Conservation. A. Tomaszewski, ed. Pp. 167-182. Florence, Italy: Edizioni Polistampa.

Australia ICOMOS 1999 The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance. Burwood, Australia.

Bell, Dorothy 2008 The Value of Ruins: Present Definitions and Methods of Perception. In Values and Criteria in Heritage Conservation. A. Tomaszewski, ed. Pp. 261-271. Florence, Italy: Edizioni Polistampa.

Berkowitz, Chezy, and Jeremie Hoffman 2009 The White City of Tel-Aviv. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos, Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 125-128. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Berthelot, Denis 2013 AVAP - Aires de valorisation de l’architecture et du patrimoine. http://www.outil2amenagement.certu.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/avap-aires- de-valorisation-de-l-architecture-et-du-r261.html, accessed June 2, 2015.

Boccardi, Giovanni 2008 Perspectives on World Heritage Criteria. In Values and Criteria in Heritage Conservation. A. Tomaszewski, ed. Pp. 383-390. Florence, Italy: Edizioni Polistampa.

312

Bumbaru, Dinu 1994 Authenticity and Dignity - Heritage and Human Dimension. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 279-282. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Cameron, Christina 1994 Authenticity and the World Heritage Convention. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 283-285. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2009 The Evolution of the Concept of Outstanding Universal Value. In Essays in Honor of Jukka Jokilehto. S.-P. N. and J. King, eds. Pp. 127-236. Rome, Italy: ICCROM.

Cans, Roger 1983 Les 100 millions du Mont-Saint Michel. Le Monde, September 28.

Castel-Branco, Cristina, and Ahmad Junaid Sorosh-Wali 2011 ICOMOS and World Heritage Centre Joint Reactif Monitoring Mission Report: Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (France) (80bis). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Centre Régional de Documentation Pédagogique de Bretagne 2005 Baie du Mont Saint-Michel : "Opération Grand Site" - Les grands paysages de la baie et leurs limites. http://www.cndp.fr/crdp- rennes/crdp/crdp_dossiers/dossiers/mont_stmichel/restaurer/accueil.htm, accessed May 15, 2015.

Cleere, Henry 1994 The Evaluation of Authenticity in the Context of the World Heritage Convention. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 57-66. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Clottes, Jean 2006 Un siècle d’art parietal en France. In Monumental: Revue scientific et technique des monuments historiques - Grottes ornées. F. Bercé and F. Goven, eds. Pp. 6-13. Paris, France: Monum, Éditions du patrimoine.

Commission nationale pour l'UNESCO, and Institutions gouvernementales responsables du patrimoine culturel et naturel 2014a Section I - France. In Periodic Report for Europe - Second Cycle. U.W.H. Centre, ed. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2014b Section II - France: Les Causses and the Cévennes, paysage culturel de l'agro-pastoralisme méditerranéen. In Periodic Report for Europe - Second Cycle. U.W.H. Centre, ed. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2014c Section II - France: Mont-Saint-Michel et sa Baie. In Periodic Report for Europe - Second Cycle. U.W.H. Centre, ed. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

313

2014d Section II - France: Palais et parc de Versailles. In Periodic Report for Europe - Second Cycle. U.W.H. Centre, ed. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2014e Section II - France: Provins, ville de foire médiévale. In Periodic Report for Europe - Second Cycle. U.W.H. Centre, ed. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2014f Section II - France: Site historique de Lyon. In Periodic Report for Europe - Second Cycle. U.W.H. Centre, ed. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2014g Section II - France: Sites préhistoriques et grottes ornées de la vallée de la Vézère. In Periodic Report for Europe - Second Cycle. U.W.H. Centre, ed. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Cunha, Maria Dolores Penna de Almeida 1994 On Authenticity. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 261-263. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. de Wit, Leonard 2006 A Dutch approach to buffer zones. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28- 29.

Delluc, Brigitte, Gilles Delluc, and Francis Guichard 1987 La grotte ornée de Saint-Cirq (Dordogne). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française:364-393.

Department of Economics and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat 2007 Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. New York, NY: United Nations.

Desdemaines-Hugon 2010 Stepping-Stones: A Journey Through the Ice Age Caves of the Dordogne. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. di Stefano, Roberto 1994 L’authenticité des valeurs. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 137-147. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Doulcier, Jean, et al. 1978 Le Mont-Saint-Michel entre terre et mer: Une bataille décisive pour la sauvegarde du site le plus prestigieux de France. Pp. 33-44. Paris, France: Caisse national des monuments historiques.

314

Draye, Anne Mie 2006 Buffer Zones in International Conventions. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28-29.

Dupont, Jacques 1983 Viollet-le-Duc and Restoration France. In Readings in Historic Preservation: Why? What? How? J. Norman Williams, E.H. Kellogg, and F.B. Gilbert, eds. Pp. 9-16. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.

Elías, Mujica 1994 Authenticity and Heritage Diversity: Archaeological Sites and Cultural Landscapes in the Andean Countries. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 233-250. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

État de conservation 2014 Rapport sur l'état de conservation du bien inscrit sur le Liste du patrimoine mondial « Le Mont-Saint-Michel et sa Baie » (France) (C 80bis). France.

Fejérdy, Tamás 1994 Authenticité dans la restauration des monuments historiques. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 211-216. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2008 Evolution and Possible Enhancement of the Concept of OUV. In Values and Criteria in Heritage Conservation. A. Tomaszewski, ed. Pp. 323-327. Florence, Italy: Edizioni Polistampa. 2009 Approaching 40 Years Old: World Heritage Now and Its Possible Future. In Essays in Honor of Jukka Jokilehto. S.-P. N. and J. King, eds. Pp. 137-141. Rome, Italy: ICCROM.

Feliú, Carmen Añón 1994 Authenticity Garden and Landscape. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 265-269. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Firestone, Michael 2008 Aesthetic Values of Historic Cities. In Values and Criteria in Heritage Conservation. A. Tomaszewski, ed. Pp. 330-334. Florence, Italy: Edizioni Polistampa.

First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments 1931 The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments.

Fontaine, G. 1980 France: Legislation, Organisation, Finance. In Protection and Cultural Animation of Monuments, Sites and Historic Towns in Europe: The present situation in Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, France,

315

Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia. H.-D. Dyroff, ed. Pp. 105-117. Bonn, Germany: German Commission for UNESCO.

Froidevaux, Yves-Marie 1978 Un projet pour préserver l'insularité du Mont-Saint-Michel. Pp. 44-48. Paris, France: Caisse national des monuments historiques.

Furrer, Bernhard 2009 Vieille ville de Berne. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos, Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 137-140. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Gauthier, Marc 2006 La grotte de Lascaux, patrimoine de l’humanité. In Monumental: Revue scientific et technique des monuments historiques - Grottes ornées. F. Bercé and F. Goven, eds. Pp. 58-61. Paris, France: Monum, Éditions du patrimoine.

Geneste, Jean-Michel 2006 De la découverte à la première crise bioclimatique de 1963. In Monumental: Revue scientific et technique des monuments historiques - Grottes ornées. F. Bercé and F. Goven, eds. Pp. 14-21. Paris, France: Monum, Éditions du patrimoine.

Henket, H.A.J., and N. Tummers 1994 Authenticity of the Modern Movement. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 327-328. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Hoernig, Heidi, and Mark Seasons 2005 Understanding Indicators. In Community Indicators Measuring Systems. R. Phillips, ed. Pp. 3-32. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Holtorf, Cornelius 2010 Heritage Values in Contemporary Popular Culture. In Heritage Values in Contemporary Society. G.S. Smith, P.M. Messenger, and H.A. Soderland, eds. Pp. 43-54. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc.

ICCROM 2009 ICCROM Position Paper. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos, Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 45-49. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2015 What is ICCROM? http://www.iccrom.org/about/what-is-iccrom, accessed May 1, 2015.

316

ICLAFI 2008 The World Heritage Convention and The Buffer Zone. In Heritage at Risk: ICOMOS World Report 2006/2007 on Monuments and Sites in Danger. M. Petzet and J. Ziesemer, eds. Pp. 183-184. Altenburg, Germany: E. Reinhold-Verlag.

ICOMOS-IFLA 1981 The Florence Charter: Historic Gardens. Florence, Italy.

ICOMOS 1964 The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. Venice, Italy. 1979a ICOMOS Evaluation of the nomination of Mont Saint Michel and its bay. 1979b ICOMOS Evaluation of the nomination of the Decorated Caves of the Valley of the Vézère. 1979c ICOMOS Evaluation of the nomination of the Palace, Trianons and Park of Versailles. 1998 ICOMOS Evaluation of the nomination of the historic site of Lyon. 2000 ICOMOS Evaluation of the nomination of Provins, town of medieval fairs. 2005 Xi'an Declaration on the Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas. Xi'an, China. 2007a ICOMOS Evaluation of Mont Saint-Michel and its Bay (France): Buffer Zone Proposal. 2007b ICOMOS Evaluation of Palace and Park of Versailles (France): Buffer Zone Proposal. 2011 ICOMOS Evaluation of the nomination of Causses and the Cévennes. 2015a ICOMOS' Mission. http://www.icomos.org/en/about-icomos/mission-and- vision/icomos-mission, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015b Liste des comités scientifiques internationaux. http://www.icomos.org/en/about-icomos/image-menu-about-icomos/181- committees/international-scientific-committees, accessed May 1, 2015.

Ito, Nobuo 1994 "Authenticity" Inherent in Cultural Heritage in Asia and Japan. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 35-45. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

IUCN 2014 Advisory Body Role. http://iucn.org/about/work/programmes/wcpa_worldheritage/advisory_body_role, accessed May 1, 2015.

Jokilehto, Jukka 2008 Aesthetics in the World Heritage Context. In Values and Criteria in Heritage Conservation. A. Tomaszewski, ed. Pp. 183-192. Florence, Italy: Edizioni Polistampa.

317

Jukko, Jokilehto, et al. 2005 The World Heritage List: Filling the Gaps - an Action Plan for the Future. Parsdorf bei München, Germany: ICOMOS.

Kowalski, Wojciech 2006 Buffer (Protective) 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. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28- 29.

Laenen, Marc 1994 Authenticity in Relation to Development. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 351-357. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Larsen, Knut Einar 1994 Preface. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. xi-xiii. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Longuet, Isabelle, and Jean-Marie Vincent 2001 France. In Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation. R. Pickard, ed. Pp. 92- 112. London, UK: Spon Press.

Lowenthal, David 1994 Changing Criteria of Authenticity. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 121-135. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

M'Bow, Amadou-Mahtar 1984 Allocution de M. Amadou-Mahtar à l’occasion de la cérémonie d’inscription du Mont-Saint-Michel et de sa Baie sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial. Paris, France: UNESCO.

MAB 2009 MAB Position Paper. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos, Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 73-76. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Machat, Christoph 2006 The World Heritage List - German Conflicts related to Buffer Zones and nomination areas of wide extention: Cologne Cathedral and Dresden Elbe Valley. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28-29.

318

Mandawala, Prashantha B. 2006 Buffer Zones in World Cultural Heritage Sites: Sri Lankan Examples in Urban and Natural Setting. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28-29.

Maro, Eliwasa E. 2009 Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos, Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 91-93. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Marshall, Duncan 2011 Preparing World Heritage Nominations. Paris, France: UNESCO.

Martorell Carreño, Alberto 2006 Buffer Zones as a Tool for Protecting World Heritage Sites: The Case of the Heritage Routes. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28-29.

Mathieu, Agnès 2006 À qui appartiennent les grottes ornées ? In Monumental: Revue scientific et technique des monuments historiques - Grottes ornées. F. Bercé and F. Goven, eds. Pp. 19. Paris, France: Monum, Éditions du patrimoine.

Ministère de la culture et de la communication 1979a Decorated Grottoes of the Vézère Valley. Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication. 1979b Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay. Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication. 1979c Palace and Park of Versailles. Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication. 1998a Dossier d’inscription des chemins français de Saint-Jacques-de-Compostelle sur la liste du Patrimoine Mondial. Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication. 1998b Ville de Lyon: dossier de candidature à l’inscription du site historique de Lyon sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication. 2000 Provins: une ville de foire médiévale (dossier de presentation en vue de l’inscription sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial de l’Unesco au titre d’ensemble urbain). Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication. 2007 Vauban: Projet d’inscription de l’œvre de Vauban au patrimoine mondial de l’Unesco. Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication. 2011 Les Causses et les Cévennes: Paysage culturel de l’agro-pastoralisme méditerranéen (candidature à l’inscription sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial de l’Unesco). Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication.

319

2015 La Grotte de Lascaux: Rapport sur l'état de conservation de la grotte au 31 janvier 2015. Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication.

Ministère de la culture et de la communication and Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable 2005 Atlas des biens français inscrits sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial. Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication et Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable. 2011a Atlas des biens français inscrits sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial: 080bis - Mont-Saint-Michel et sa baie : délimitation du bien lors de son inscription sur la Liste en 1979 et de sa zone tampon approuvée en 2007. Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication et Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable. 2011b Atlas des biens français inscrits sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial: 083bis - Palais et parc de Versailles : délimitation du bien lors de son inscription sur la Liste en 1979 et de sa zone tampon approuvée en 2007. Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication et Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable. 2011c Atlas des biens français inscrits sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial: 873rev - Provins, ville de foire médiévale : délimitation du bien et de sa zone tampon lors de son inscription sur la Liste en 2001. Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication et Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable. 2012 Atlas des biens français inscrits sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial. Paris, France: Ministère de la culture et de la communication et Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable.

Ministry of Culture and Communication, Department of Architecture and Heritage and Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development, Department of Nature and Landscapes 2005a Section II - France: Mont-Saint-Michel et sa Baie. In Periodic Report for Europe - First Cycle. U.W.H. Centre, ed. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2005b Section II - France: Palais et parc de Versailles. In Periodic Report for Europe - First Cycle. U.W.H. Centre, ed. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2005c Section II - France: Sites préhistoriques et grottes ornées de la vallée de la Vézère. In Periodic Report for Europe - First Cycle. U.W.H. Centre, ed. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Mitchell, Nora J. 1994 Evaluating Authenticity of Cultural Landscapes: A Perspective from the US. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 375-381. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Mujica, Elias 2009 Jesuit Mission of the Guaranis. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos,

320

Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 153-155. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Mürner, Johann 2009 Preface. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos, Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 11-13. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Petzet, Michael 1994 The Test of Authenticity and the New Cult of Monuments. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 85-99. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2008 What is Outstanding Universal Value? In Values and Criteria in Heritage Conservation. A. Tomaszewski, ed. Pp. 315-321. Florence, Italy: Edizioni Polistampa.

Phillips, Rhonda 2003 Community Indicators. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. 2006 Indicators Framework for Gauging Quality of Life Impacts of Historic Preservation in Florida’s Communities. In Contributions of Historic Preservation to the Quality of Life in Florida. T. McLendon, K. Larsin, J. Klein, R. Phillips, G. Willumson, L. Pennington-Gray, and J. Confer, eds. Pp. I-1 - I-11. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Trust for Historic Preservation and Florida Department of State.

Reap, James K. 2006 Buffer Zones for Protecting Heritage Properties in the United States. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28-29.

Ruskin, John 1989 The Seven Lamps of Architecture. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc.

Salih, Abdellah 2009 Site archéologique de Volubilis. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos, Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 95-97. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Sire, Marie-Anne 2006 De l'éliminationa des champignons au constat d'état. In Monumental: Revue scientific et technique des monuments historiques - Grottes ornées. F. Bercé and F. Goven, eds. Pp. 68-75. Paris, France: Monum, Éditions du patrimoine.

Skarmeas, George Christos 1983 An Analysis of Architectural Preservation Theories: From 1790 to 1975. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.

321

Sommier, Michel, and Nathalie Berger 2015 Parcs nationaux de France. www.parcsnationaux.fr, accessed June 2, 2015.

Staneva, Hristina 2006a Conservation of Cultural Heritage in Bulgaria and Buffer Zone Issues. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28-29. 2006b World Heritage Committee in 2006 and the Buffer Zone Issue. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28-29.

Stovel, Herb 1994 Forword: Working Toward the Nara Document. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. xxxiii-xxxvi. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2007 Effective Use of Authenticity and Integrity as World Heritage Qualifying Conditions. City and Time 2(3):21-36. 2009 ICOMOS Position Paper. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos, Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 23-42. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Stuart, Darwin G. 1972 Urban Indicators: Their Role in Planning. American Society of Planning Officials.

Summerson, Sir John 1983 Ruskin, Morris, and the 'Anti-Scrape' Philosophy. In Readings in Historic Preservation: Why? What? How? J. Norman Williams, E.H. Kellogg, and F.B. Gilbert, eds. Pp. 18-22. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.

Thoin, Muriel, ed. 2006 Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development Policy in France. Paris, France: Ministère des affaires étrangères.

Trinder, Barrie 1994 Authenticity in the Industrial Heritage. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 403-406. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Turner, Michael 2009 Introduction. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos, Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 15-18. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

322

UNESCO 1972 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

UNESCO World Heritage Centre 2009a Final Report of the Expert Meeting. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos, Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 157-182. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2009b WHC Position Paper. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos, Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 59-70. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2015a Advisory Bodies. http://whc.unesco.org/en/advisorybodies, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015b Auschwitz Birkenau German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945). http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/31, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015c The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1153, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015d France. http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/fr, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015e Historic Site of Lyons. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/872, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015f List of Factors Affecting the Properties. http://whc.unesco.org/en/factors, accessed September 4, 2015. 2015g Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/80, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015h Palace and Park of Versailles. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/83, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015i Periodic Reporting. http://whc.unesco.org/en/periodicreporting, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015j Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/85, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015k Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/873, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015l Reactive Monitoring Process. http://whc.unesco.org/en/reactive-monitoring, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015m The Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/868, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015n State of Conservation Information System. http://whc.unesco.org/en/activities/691, accessed September 4, 2015. 2015o World Heritage Centre. http://whc.unesco.org/en/world-heritage-centre, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015p The World Heritage Committee. http://whc.unesco.org/en/committee, accessed May 1, 2015. 2015q The World Heritage Convention. http://whc.unesco.org/en/convention, accessed May 1, 2015.

323

2015r World Heritage List. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list, accessed May 1, 2015.

UNESCO World Heritage Committee 1977 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 1978 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 1979 Committee Decisions CONF 003 XII.46 Consideration of Nominations to the World Heritage List. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 1980 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 1988 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage 1989 State of Conservation (SOC): Palace and Park of Versailles (France) (C 83bis). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 1990a Committee Decisions: Mont Saint Michel and its Bay (France). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 1990b State of Conservation (SOC): Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (France) (C 80bis). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 1991 Committee Decisions: Mont Saint Michel and its Bay (France). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 1997 State of Conservation (SOC): Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (France) (C 80bis). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 1998a Committee Decisions CONF 203 VII.B.1 Inscription: The Historic Site of Lyon (France). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 1998b Committee Decisions CONF 203 VIII.B.1 Inscription: The Routes of Santiago de Compostela in France (France) Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 1999 State of Conservation (SOC): Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (France) (C 80bis). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2001 Committee Decisions CONF 208 X.A Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs (France). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2003 State of Conservation (SOC): Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (France) (C 80bis). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2005 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2006a Committee Decisions: Changes to Names of Properties (Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2006b Committee Decisions: Nominations of Cultural Properties to the World Heritage List (The Causses and the Cévennes). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2007 Committee Decisions: Mont Saint Michel and its Bay (France). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2008a Decision : 32 COM 8B.60 - Examination of nominations and minor modifications to the boundaries of naturel, mixed and cultural properties to the

324

World Heritage List - Cologne Cathedral (GERMANY). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2008b State of Conservation (SOC): Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley (France) (C 85). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2009a Committee Decisions: Properties deferred or referred back by previous sessions of the World Heritage Committee - The Causses and the Cévennes (France). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2009b State of Conservation (SOC): Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley (France) (C 85). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2010a State of Conservation (SOC): Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (France) (C 80bis). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2010b State of Conservation (SOC): Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley (France) (C 85). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2010c State of Conservation (SOC): Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs (France) (C 873rev). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2011a Committee Decisions 35COM 8B.39 Cultural Properties - The Causses and the Cévennes, Mediterranean agro-pastoral Cultural Landscape (France) Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2011b State of Conservation (SOC): Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley (France) (C 85). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2012a State of Conservation (SOC): Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (France) (C 80bis). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2012b State of Conservation (SOC): Provins, Town of Medieval Fairs (France) (C 873rev). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2013a Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2013b State of Conservation (SOC): Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley (France) (C 85). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre. 2014 State of Conservation (SOC): Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (France) (C 80bis). Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Villanueva, Luis Anguita 2006 The Buffer Zone and the Preservation of Cultural Heritage: The Spanish Case. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28-29.

Virtala, Satu-Kaarina 2006 World Heritage Sites and Buffer Zones: The Case of Old Rauma and a New Local Detailed Plan. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28-29. von Droste, Bernd, and Ulf Bertilsson 1994 Authenticity and World Heritage. In Nara Conference on Authenticity. Pp. 3- 15. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

325

von Treutzschler, W. 2006 The Buffer Zone and the Wartburg Case. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28-29.

Walker, Meredith 2008 Spirituality, Land Tenure and the Recognition of Heritage Values in Australia. In Values and Criteria in Heritage Conservation. A. Tomaszewski, ed. Pp. 83-97. Florence, Italy: Edizioni Polistampa.

Werther, Betty 1984 UNESCO Features: A bulletin for the news media No. 68. Paris, France: UNESCO.

Wiffen, Graeme 2006 World Heritage Sites and Buffer Zones: an Australian perspective. Paper presented at The World Heritage Convention and the Buffer Zone ICOMOS Symposium, Hiroshima, November 28-29.

World Heritage Committee 2009 Report of the International Meeting and Draft Decision. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos, Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 187-191. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

Yang, Rui 2009 Mount Huangshan. In World Heritage and Buffer Zones: International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones - Davos, Switzerland 11-14 March 2008. O. Martin and G. Piatti, eds. Pp. 109-111. Paris, France: UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

326

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Charlotte L. Lake completed her doctoral degree in the College of Design,

Construction and Planning in fall 2015 with a focus on heritage conservation. Her educational background includes a Bachelor of Arts degree in anthropology and a

Master of Construction Management. In addition to her work and research in France, her fieldwork has included archaeological excavation in Peru, historic resource survey work in New Orleans, documentation of a historic structure and mapping of two historic cemeteries on Nantucket, and participation in a restoration project at a Shaker site in upstate New York.

327