Community involvement ma ers in conserving World Heritage sites - Urban and remote cases of Japan
Aya Miyazaki PhD Candidate, University of Tokyo/ Japan Founda on Outline
World Heritage (WH) conserva on mechanism Conserva on value pyramid Communi es Ins tu on Case studies Conclusion
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 2 World Heritage (WH) conserva on mechanism Conserva on value pyramid Communi es Ins tu on Case studies Conclusion
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 3 WH Conserva on Mechanism Inscrip on and conserva on, main concepts of WH system, are considered to be under the responsibility of these 3 actors
Inscription Conservation Mechanism
• Creates a Phase I Phase II Tentative List of possible World • Notification to the Committee of • Receives assistance States Heritage sites emerging threat needed for the Party • Sends application • Periodic reporting of state of conservation of the two sites to conservation • Tries to delist the site World Heritage • Tries to conserve and from Endangered List
Center manage the site Advisory • Review of • Monitoring mission to check • Supports the States applications sent the situation Party by providing Bodies to WH Center • Provide professional & technical assistance (ICOMOS/ • Monitoring mission technical advice and • Monitors the threat in a IUCN) to check the OUV assistance long-term period • Discussion over • Monitors the conservation • Inscribes the World World application from state Heritage into the in advisory bodies • Condemnation of the lack of Danger List Heritage • Decision to conservation • Decides to allocate Committee inscribe/not • Showing of support to provide immediate assistance inscribe sites international assistance from the WH Fund
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 4 WH Conserva on Mechanism CH conserva on mechanism repeats conserva on, condemna on of threat and conserva on support un l the issue is se led - but without local presence
Regular Phase I Phase II Conservation
• Periodic Imminent threat • Tries to Worsening of the • Tries to rid reporting emerges on an improve the threatening situation the threat State Party • State of inscribed World status by • Improve by conservation Heritage site getting rid conserving report of threat
• Surveils • Notified of the • Continues • Inscribes the site • Continues World reports threat surveillance on the WH in surveillance • Discusses • Denounces the on the site Danger List on the site Heritage and grants states party with issues • Provides • Decides on Committee international emergency needed assistance assistance assistance • Monitors • Monitors sites to • Continues • Monitors sites to • Continues Advisory reports on confirm the situ necessary plan appropriate necessary Bodies conservation • Provides monitoring conservation monitoring (ICOMOS/ • Gives advice technical • Provides • Provides IUCN) for the assistance technical assistance requests assistance When improved
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 5 WH Conserva on Mechanism - Inscrip on From the inscrip on process, CH only refers to consulta on with experts for nomina on and not to the role of communi es ICOMOS Nomination Process Map
• Natural Heritage • Cultural Heritage
Expert-led
Source: UNESCO (2011) Opera onal Guidelines for the Implementa on of the World Heritage Conven on, p. 117. July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 6 WH Conserva on Mechanism - Inscrip on On the other hand, NH consults with “Local NGOs, communi es and other stakeholders” from the nomina on process IUCN Nomination Process Map IUCN REPORT TO WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
IUCN World Heritage Panel
Consultation with: UNEP – World Government Officials Conservation External Field Inspection ↔ Local NGOs Monitoring Centre Reviewers Local Communities (UNEP-WCMC) Other Stakeholders Datasheet
IUCN Programme on Protected
Areas UNESCO World Heritage Centre
Nomination dossiers Source: UNESCO (2011) Opera onal Guidelines for the Implementa on of the World Heritage Conven on, p. 121. July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 7 World Heritage (WH) conserva on mechanism Conserva on value pyramid Communi es Ins tu on Case studies Conclusion
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 8 Conserva on Value Pyramid WH is a system of mul -layered actors and conserva on values where poli cal and professional inten ons co-exist in 1 scheme
Interna onal Organiza on
Poli cal Value Na onal Professional Value Government
Local Authority
Local/social value Community
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 9 Conserva on Value Pyramid Each actor defines and protects different significance of the site, based on different set of values, thus complica ng the ma er Value map (International, national, and local) Value of the CH • Outstanding Universal Value
poli cally chosen Interna onal • Authen city, Integrity Expert Organiza on • 10 sets of criteria - led & Na onal • Values based on na onal criteria & importance; Iden ty-based significance Japan: historic, ar s c, academic, and age
Gov values (Protec on Law)
Personally & Local • Values that are based on local pride, historically connected Authority culture and history • Local/social/historical value
Community • Personal connec on
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 10 Conserva on Value Pyramid Because OUV is an interna onal, professional value set, local communi es values are not represented in the WH system Value map (International, national, and local) Value of the CH • Outstanding Universal Value
poli cally chosen Interna onal • Authen city, Integrity Expert Organiza on • 10 sets of criteria - led & Na onal • Values based on na onal criteria & importance; Iden ty-based significance Japan: historic, ar s c, academic,
Gov academic, and age values (Protec on Law)
Personally & Local • Values that are based on local pride, historically connected Authority culture and history • Local/social/historical value
Community • Personal connec on
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 11 WH Conserva on Mechanism - Actors Where is the “community” in WH conserva on mechanism, especially for the CH protec on? Interna onal organiza on Ex: UNESCO Na onal authority
Local authority
Residents/ workers on/near WH site
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 12 World Heritage (WH) • Who is the conserva on mechanism community? Conserva on value pyramid • Does the size Communi es ma er? Ins tu on Case studies Conclusion
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 13 Communi es - defini on Who are the communi es?
Communities (Law, 2004) Law (2004) divided the local communi es according to a typology to dis nguish Civic Trusts those who have an effect on planning and conserva on
Space- Place- Historical based based groups groups groupings on But do they represent the whole of par cular historic periods Green- communi es??? based groups Local groups
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 14 Communi es - defini on My defini on: The local community is a group of individuals with personal a achment to, or is affected, by the WHS Pendlebury (2009) Howard (2003)
Those that the conserva on is at the Insider: people consciously or centre of their lifestyle because it is a unconsciously inside the paradigm of Owners
part of or a whole of their occupa on an insider value that are related to the Core place or interested in the cultural Croups Those who are ac ve in conserva on heritage share, concerned with the planning processes for personal person or event-related histories that interest or gain, mo vated by Insiders cannot be understood by experts or passion or a achment those outside of the value set Consumers of historic environment Outsiders for leisure and educa on through Communi es: “Social Unity of people that shares common value visits judgments” Jokilehto (2014) Governments Wider “Most people with the typically more Croups modest historic environment Academics encountered as a backdrop to everyday life” Media
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 15 Communi es - defini on Diverse set of communi es (core groups) have significant effect on cultural heritage conserva on system and policy Interna onal organiza on Na onal Ex: UNESCO authority Epistemic community Local authority
State A State B
Residents/ workers Amenity socie es/ Stakeholders on/near WH site NGOs
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 16 World Heritage (WH) conserva on mechanism Conserva on value pyramid Communi es Ins tu on Case studies Conclusion
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 17 Ins tu on Protec on Law has evolved over the years to reflect changing CH values including expansion of the autonomy of local
authority Law for the Protec on of Previous cultural property The Protec on Law (1950-) The basics of the Protec on Law Conserva on law Cultural Proper es (1950-) • Japanese WHS are protected under 文 = fundamental legal system for the 化財保護法 自然環境保全 protec on of na onally important CP for CH and • Established in 1950 to Tangible CP 法、自然公園法（環境庁） for NH (既 designate/register, manage, 存の法律により担保）（田中俊徳） Objec ve: To designate, register, protect, and u lize cultural それらの法律で担保できない部分に manage, protect, and u lize cultural Law for Preserva on of Old Shrines and Intangible CP – proper es Temples 古社寺保存法 (1897-) 関しては、副次的な作用のある他の • Combined “古社寺保存法”, “史 proper es 法律・規定をそれぞれのケースに合う
跡名勝天然紀念物保存法”, “国 Law for the Preserva on of Na onal Folk CP ように適用している 国宝保存法 宝保存法” and “重要美術品等 Background: devasta ng effect on the Treasures (1929-) • 6分類 country a er WWII ノの保存ニ関スル法律” – 特に伝統的建造物群保存地区制度に • Background: devasta ng effect Law related to the preserva on of fine arts Monuments 重要美術品等の保存に関する法律 (1933-) ついて（白川郷、石見銀山） on the country a er WWII 4 pillars of the Law: 1) Define which CH be conserved Groups of Tradi onal Buildings • What it does: (1) defines which Historical Spot, Scenic Beauty, and Natural 日本の世界遺産のうち、 分類のどれ 2) Regulates ac ons that could harm CH 史跡名勝天然 – 6 CH be conserved, (2) regulates Monument Preserva on Law (1975-) にそれぞれ区分されて登録がされて 3) Management and restora on 紀念物保存法 (1919-) ac ons that could lose/harm CH, いる？？ 4) Public presenta on (3) management ‘ restora on, Cultural Landscape (2004-) • リストを作る and (4) show publicly
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 18 Ins tu on Groups of Tradi onal Buildings was established specifically to protect CH that is unique for each local community and to protect them under the autonomy of the local authority Na onal Protec on Law (Current Law (1950-))
Tangible CP Na onal Intangible CP Gov Folk CP 84 districts/ 74 ci es, etc. in 38 Local Monuments prefectures Authority (3,263.9ha) Groups of Tradi onal Buildings (1975-) Cultural Landscape Community (2004-)
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 19 Ins tu on WHS can be defined and protected under the Protec on Law but how does it affect the local community??
World Cultural Na onal CH Local CH Heritage (Protec on Law) perspec ve Tangible CP Monuments Folk CP Monuments Groups of Tradi onal Buildings Groups of buildings (1975-) ? Tangible CP Sites Monuments
Cultural landscapes Cultural Landscape (2004-)
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 20 World Heritage (WH) • Remote WHS conserva on mechanism – Shirakawa Communi es – Iwami Conserva on value pyramid • Urban WHS Ins tu on – Kyoto Case studies Conclusion
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 21 Case Studies Communi es are divided into 2 groups based on the size of the popula on of the CH where urban H have more communi es involved in an intricate way compared to remote areas
WH site in a remote area WH site in an urban area
Shirakawamura, Iwami Ginzan, Horyu- Kyoto, Himeji Castle, Nara, Hiroshima ji, Hiraizumi, Itsukushima Shrine, Kii Peace Memorial Mountain Range, Nikko, Ryukyu
May 28, 2013 Disserta on Proposal 22 Case Studies – Remote CH Historic Villages of Shirakawa-go and Gokayama (1995) – iv, v
• まずきれいな写真を見せて白川村の印象を Core zone: 68 ha 提示するBZ: 58,873 ha • Explain the size of the village (popula on, area of core zone and bz), its history, and the criteria for WHI
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 23 Case Studies – Remote CH Core and Buffer Zones of Ogimachi-district of Shirakawa-go
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 24 Case Studies – Remote CH
Core zone of Ogimachi-district, Shirakawa-go
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 25 Case Studies – Remote CH
Core zone of Ogimachi-district, Shirakawa-go
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 26 Case Studies – Remote CH
Core zone of Ogimachi-district, Shirakawa-go
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 27 Case Studies – Remote CH
Core zone of Ogimachi-district, Shirakawa-go
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 28 Case Studies – Remote CH Local community, based on Kumi’s, created various groups and socie es to protect the CH by incorpora ng local authori es, too Shirakawamura local community map 300 million yen Fund to protect Ogimachi Gifu Prefecture (150 million yen each by Gifu and Shirakawa) Preserva on Advisory Shirakawamura (village/ local Body authority) Board of Educa on 601 households in 7 districts Ogimachi district 150 households MP Commi ee (30 ppl)
Protec on Society (1970-)
7 Kumi’s of Ogimachi
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 29 Case Studies – Remote CH Conserva on of Shirakawa-go started off from an intense conserva on movement of the local community 600,000 1.3 million visitors visitors 19c 1971 1975 1976 1995
Na onal Groups of Ogimachi designated as the Inscribed body Tradi onal Important TB as a WHS (ACA, etc) Buildings (TB) added to Protec on Law Regional/ Recogni on needed for any local change to be made on authority gassho-buildings by the local authority
Houses Establishment of the With it, the following Local were Protec on society and 3 • Monthly gathering of the Society community built Principles of the to discuss conserva on ma er community under a before taking it to local authority strong leadership of the • Annual village mee ng chief of the village • Conserva on
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 30 Case Studies – Remote CH Community members play an important part of “watch dogs” controlling the establishment of realis c and holis c MP and
Ac on Plan 1.86 million 1.43 million visitors visitors 1995 2000 2007 2008 2010 2012 2013
Na onal Inscribed as body a WHS (ACA, etc) Expert discussion MP 4-body mee ng starts to include local Considera on MP Tourism Ac on Regional/ community in mee ng starts local established Plan in place to the Management by the protect the
authority Plan (MP) making steering cultural commi ee landscape Parking Lot Issue starts Local 30 local Restric on of community members x the car entry 16 mee ngs into village for MP from Dec.
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 31 Case Studies – Remote CH Ogimachi district became a popular tourist des na on spot a er the designa on as Groups of Tradi onal Buildings
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 32 Case Studies – Remote CH Current issues of the Shirakawamura are parking lot, hotel construc on, and the gap between rich and poor
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 33 World Heritage (WH) • Remote WHS conserva on mechanism – Shirakawa Communi es – Iwami Conserva on value pyramid • Urban WHS Ins tu on – Kyoto Case studies Conclusion
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 34 Case Studies – Remote CH Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine and its Cultural Landscape (2007) – ii, iii, v
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 35 Case Studies – Remote CH
Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine and its Cultural Landscape
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 36 Case Studies – Remote CH
Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine and its Cultural Landscape
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 37 Case Studies – Remote CH Yunotsu hot spring – part of Iwami Ginzan Silver Mine and its Cultural Landscape
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 38 Case Studies – Remote CH From the prefectural to local level, Iwami has a strong layer of conserva on bodies and movement, especially in Omori 300 million yen Fund Iwami Ginzan local community (dona on: 1.5m by map public, .75m each from Shimane and Oda City) Shimane Prefecture Conserva on Management Council Oda City (Board of Educa on) (+community group) Tomogaura Management 10 people organiza on Omori district 400 people / 10 Iwami Ginzan Yunotsu self-governing collabora on council Okidomari district bodies (local authority+ci zens) 10 people 400 people / 9 Proac ve Omori Town CH Pres. self-governing conservators bodies Society (1957-) Neighborhood Council of Omori
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 39 Case Studies – Remote CH Star ng from 2005, Iwami Ginzan Collabora on Council met 12 mes as a whole, 61 in subgroups to form effec ve ac on plan by incorpora ng more than 200 proac ve individuals of Oda Iwami Ginzan Collabora on Council
Communi es of Oda City
Ac ve Community Groups
Business en es Local authority
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 40 Case Studies – Remote CH The community of mining descendants started conserva on movement through research, which led to na onal designa ons
16c 1923 1957 1967 1969 1987
Na onal Iwami Ginzan Inscribed as an body designated as a Important (ACA, etc) Na onal groups of Historic Site Tradi onal (ACA) Buildings (ACA) Regional/ Iwami Ginzan local (silver mine) registered as a authority prefectural historic site Oldest Closure of the Establishment Local mining mine; of Omori Town community history Beginning of CH Preserva on founded the research to Society preserve the CH
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 41 Case Studies – Remote CH Based on the strong local conserva on movement, Shimane prefecture decided to use Iwami Ginzan for WH inscrip on
1995 1999 2001 2004 2005 2006 2007
Na onal Yunotsu Okidomari/ Nomina on Inscribed body designated as Tomogaura dossier sent as a WHS
denken; designated to WHC (ACA, etc) Holis c as denken approach to (ACA) WH (ACA) Research for WHI starts (staffs increase from 2 to 15 for WHI by 2003) Governor Report for Added to the • Ac on Plan in Regional/ Sumita the tenta ve list place (to be local decides to nomina on reviewed every authority inscribe a CH finished 3 yrs) for WHS • Park & Ride system in place Collabora on Rules for Local Council mee ngs new and Ac on Plan businesses community (not specifically
for WHS) established July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 42 Case Studies – Remote CH Conserva on-centered Omori district (1923-) coped well with the tourism expansion and is successful in site management
Sign explaining the Omori people’s cons tu on to preserve their ancestral culture well
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 43 Case Studies – Remote CH However, other areas that were later designated na onally and incorporated in the WH nomina on do not share the same passion for conserva on
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 44 World Heritage (WH) • Remote WHS conserva on mechanism – Shirakawa Communi es – Iwami Conserva on value pyramid • Urban WHS Ins tu on – Kyoto Case studies Conclusion
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 45 Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (1994) – ii, iv
Capital of Japan for 1074 years un l 1868
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 46 Case Studies – Urban CH Nijo-jo castle, a component of Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto and the only site with a Management Plan
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 47 Case Studies – Urban CH Kamigamo Shrine, a component of Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 48 Case Studies – Urban CH Prefectural and local authori es are highly involved in the protec on of cultural proper es and cityscape of Kyoto especially a er the war 8c 1868 1930 1945 1950 1966 1972
Temples & shrines Historic Na onal =property of the State environment to be body protected under (ACA, etc) urban planning area by law Urban Planning Kyoto calls on other Regional/ Law in place to historic ci es to form a local protect Kyoto as council to discuss authority “scenic area” historic landscape protec on Various communi es 3. Moto-gakku Communi es around 1. Religious community starts Kiyomizu temple starts Local community (district group that its unique rescue community 2. Tradi onal built community system of cultural prac ce and infrastructure property fes vity (school, etc)) community July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 49 Case Studies – Urban CH Although there are occasional community protests against development issues that could affect the CP and damage business, not much community movement can be seen 1973 1994 1995 1996 2000
Inscribed as a Na onal WHS body (ACA, etc)
Building Urban area Expansion Cultural Rescue Team movement con nues Regional/ al tude landscape of Civil Cultural local control in maintenance landscape Rescue Team
authority place regula ons control system starts
Kamigamo Local rescue team starts community
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 50 Case Studies – Urban CH Leader of the Civil Cultural Property Rescue Team of Kamigamo Shrine
I designed the uniform! This is the winter-version, btw.
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 51 World Heritage (WH) conserva on mechanism Conserva on value pyramid Community size ma ers? Ins tu on Case studies Conclusion
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 52 Conclusion
Community involvement and their significance in management plan-making process vary between remote and urban WHS
Remote WH Urban WHS
Local community • Started in the early 20th • All sorts of communi es in involvement century to prevent from place but only some groups before WHS permanent destruc on emerge to preserve their CH nearby Reason behind • Development affec ng CH • Development affec ng CH community • Depopula on • Protec on of CH as a means of involvement • Financial difficulty of genera ng economic gain preserving CH by oneself Local community • Strong in represen ng a • Community being considered involvement a er community’s voice an outsider/supporter in CH WHS • Engaged in making the MP/ conserva on process Ac on Plan from the start • Not included in MP-making • A ending local authority process because of the With the support of mee ngs difficulty of defining July 11-13, 2014professionals Engaging Conserva on “community” 53 Case Studies – Remote CHConclusion – remote CH Having small popula on, remote CH has mul -layered communi es involved in conserva on from early on as to urban CH where community only supports decisions made by authority Remote Heritage Urban Heritage • Mul -layered communi es • Mul ple communi es are involved in conserva on sca ering about and are not of a CH long before closely connected na onal/interna onal • Community serves as a designa on supporter of conserva on; • Community serves as an they are not the core group essen al key player in of conserva on scheme in crea ng a conserva on place because the ci es scheme with the local have long been protected authori es under the authori es
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 54 Conclusion However, both types of CH communi es consider WH status as a community awareness raiser and na onal designa on as a protector of CH/ stopper of development & demoli on • Community is protec ng the WHS because it is designated under the na onal law – Tough rules and regula ons on changes to be made on the building – People face difficul es coping with the designa on at the beginning • However, WH status raises awareness of the community about the importance of CH conserva on – Communi es check on ac vi es that could harm the OUV (i.e. “There is a telegraph pole standing in front of my house. Would it be okay? I think it harms the view of the town and is against WH designa on”)
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 55 Bibliography
ACA Bunkazai Hogo-hou Kenkyukai, Bunkazai Hogo-hou – Kaisei no point Q&A (Protec on Law – amendment points Q&A), 1997, Gyousei:Tokyo. Howard, P. (2003) Heritage: Management, Interpreta on, Iden ty. London: Con nuum. Iwami Ginzan Coopera on Council. (2006) ‘Iwami Ginzan Ac on Plan digest’, document provided by local authority of Oda City Board of Educa on, July 2013. Nishimura, Y. (2004). City Conserva on Plan. Tokyo: University of Tokyo. Nishiyama, T. (2006). Building a Sustainable Rela onship between Cultural Heritage Management and Tourism. Osaka: Na onal Museum of Ethnology. Pendlebury, J. (2009) Conserva on in the Age of Consensus. London: Routledge. Saitsu, Y. (2004) “Conserva on of World Heritage and Residents’ Lifestyles: A case study of Shirakawago” in The Japanese Associa on for Environmental Sociology. UNESCO. (2008) Opera onal Guidelines for the Implementa on of the World Heritage Conven on.
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 56 Interviews Culture and Ci zens Affairs Bureau of Kyoto. (2013) Personal Interview. Semi-structured group interview for MA disserta on. At Kyoto City local authority office, with Misato Oku, Yukitaka Hasegawa, Daisuke Hori, and Takeshi Kishimoto, 24 July 2013. Kamigamo community. (2013) Personal Interview. Semi-structured group interview for MA disserta on. At Kamigamo shrine in Kyoto, with Saburo Momoi, Takashi Okada and Priest Matsui, 24 July 2013. Matsumoto, K. (2013) Personal Interview. Semi-structured interview for MA disserta on. At local authority office in Shirakawa village, 1 August 2013. Oda City Board of Educa on (2013) Personal Interview. Semi-structured, group interview for MA disserta on. At Oda City Local Authority, with Haruo Ooguni, Yasukuni Hayashi, and Kenichi Nakata, 29 July 2013. Wada, M. (2013) Personal Interview. Casual interview for MA disserta on. At Wada House, Shirakawa-village, 31 July 2013.
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 57 Thank you very much for your a en on
July 11-13, 2014 Engaging Conserva on 58