Informationen zur Raumentwicklung Heft 3/4.2011 205 Birgitta Ringbeck Between international obligations and Mechtild Rössler local politics: the case of the Dresden Elbe Valley under the 1972 World Heritage Convention 1 Introduction 2 The Nomination of the Dresden Elbe Valley On 25 June 2009, the World Heritage Com- mittee took a far-reaching decision: it struck It is almost not known that the site had the Dresden Elbe Valley off UNESCO´s been nominated by the former German World Heritage List. The Committee con- Democratic Republic (GDR) in 1988 as a sidered that the State Party of Germany was historic town and that the ICOMOS evalu- not able to fulfil the obligations under the ation of the time was negative, because of 1972 World Heritage Convention1. a lack of authenticity due to the fact that the war-torn city was reconstructed after This was a dramatic step, as it means that World War II. Reconstruction was explicitly the international community has also failed not permitted as indicated in paragraph 86 as the World Heritage Committee stated of the Operational Guidelines2. The Bureau when referring to Article 6.1 of the Conven- of the World Heritage Committee conse- tion in its decision, which notes: “Whilst quently considered in its 14th session that fully respecting the sovereignty of the States the nomination did not meet the criteria on whose territory the cultural and natural for entry on the World Heritage List.3 The heritage mentioned in Articles 1 and 2 is State Party – in the meantime reunited situated, and without prejudice to property with the Federal Republic of Germany – de- right provided by national legislation, the cided to withdraw this first application.4 States Parties to this Convention recognize In 2001/02 a new nomination dossier was that such heritage constitutes a world her- elaborated by the local monument protec- itage for whose protection it is the duty of tion authority and taking into account the the international community as a whole to possibility of a nomination under the cul- co-operate”. tural landscape categories adopted by the The case is not only very complex due to World Heritage Committee in 1992. The the federal system, that is the different lev- nomination dossier was prepared in Ger- els of responsibility in Germany, in this man language and was translated into Eng- case the city of Dresden, the Free State of lish and submitted to the UNESCO World Sachsen and the federal authorities (Fed- Heritage Centre by 30 January 2003. In the eral Ministry of Transport, Building and Ur- dossier in paragraph 4 f the following text is Dr. Birgitta Ringbeck ban Affairs, Foreign Office and Permanent included: “Options for five new bridges are Delegierte der Kultusminister­ Delegation to UNESCO), but also because represented beside the existing bridges. A konferenz beim Welterbe­ komitee der UNESCO of the nomination, evaluation, inscription, final decision concerning number and loca- c/o Ministerium für Wirtschaft, and monitoring history of the former World tion has not yet been taken, except for the Energie, Bauen, Wohnen und Heritage property. Therefore the authors, Waldschlößchenbrücke decision of the city Verkehr NRW who were most closely involved in this pro- council (No. V2012-44-2002 from 30 May Jürgensplatz 1 cedure decided to fully document the case 2002).” Under paragraph 5a, Factors affect- 40219 Düsseldorf E­Mail: birgitta.ringbeck@ in this article and suggest using it for future ing the site – Development pressures, it was mwebwv.nrw.de reference. Furthermore the authors consid- stated “Other development pressures exist er that some misinformation was provided in the area of bridge locations (e.g. Wald- Dr. Mechtild Rössler by a number of sources including a few pol- schlößchenbrücke) through interference UNESCO World Heritage iticians, less informed journalists and the with the traditional settlement layout and Centre 7, place de Fontenoy general public, often not aware of complex the natural scenery, although continuing 75352 Paris 07 SP nomination and monitoring processes un- constructional development is not intend- France der this international legal instrument. ed in these areas.“ The dossier in paragraph E­Mail: [email protected] Birgitta Ringbeck, Mechtild Rössler: Between international obligations and local politics: 206 the case of the Dresden Elbe Valley under the 1972 World Heritage Convention © Harf Zimmermann Photography, Berlin Dresden Elbe Valley 7b gives reference to a “Short description of fined by paragraph 172 of the Operational the project Waldschlößchen bridge“. How- Guidelines for all sites inscribed. In excep- ever the original annexes which contained tional cases, such as for The Historic Centre a 1,5 page description of a potential Elbe of Vienna (Austria) in 2001 the World Herit- crossing was not translated into one of the age Committee requested a revision of an working languages of the 1972 Convention urban development project, which threat- and therefore not part of the official nomi- ened the Outstanding Universal Value of nation dossier. Furthermore, a plan with the property, at the time of the inscription. 5 options for potential crossings was in- cluded. Nowhere in the German or English dossier was any indication to be found that 3 World Heritage Committee session a complete planning procedure had started in Suzhou (2004) for the Waldschlößchen-Bridge including an international design competition award- Following the positive evaluation of the ing a First Prize on 14 December 1997 and nomination dossier by ICOMOS and the the submission of the documents for the consideration by the World Heritage Com- plan approval procedure in January 2001. mittee at its 28th session in Suzhou China, the site was inscribed as a cultural land- The official nomination dossier was af- scape under criteria (ii)(iii)(iv) and (v). The ter completeness checking at UNESCO in World Heritage Committee furthermore line with paragraph 165 of the Operational recommended that consideration be given Guidelines then transmitted to ICOMOS to cultural criterion (vi), referring to asso- International.5 In September 2003 ICOMOS ciative values, noting the important events carried out a field visit by an international associated with the city‘s history in World renowned expert from its network in ac- War II.6 cordance with the evaluation procedures in force. The evaluation mission report states The contradictions and errors in the nomi- concerning Management regime – Man- nation dossier and evaluation report were agement structure: “No traffic arteries are not corrected, neither by a factual error let- planned in this area, though there is the ter of Germany nor by any intervention of possibility for new bridges.” Concerning the German Delegation, which included Conservation – Management it is reported: the former State Conservator of Saxony and “The construction of a new bridge is fore- the head of the urban department of Dres- seen 5 km down the river from the centre.” den. Furthermore no information was given Although development projects were dis- concerning the planning approval notice cussed with the expert by the accompa- (Planfestellungsbeschluss) adopted in the nying group from the city of Dresden (ur- meantime by the Dresden Regional Admin- banism department) and the monuments istrative Authority (Regierungspräsidium) on protection authority, the evaluation proce- 25 February 2004 for the project to allow the dure requires that the field expert report is construction of the Waldschlößchen bridge. not the concluding document. The overall evaluation consists of desk studies, field vis- it report and decision by the ICOMOS Bu- 4 Inscription ceremony in Dresden reau (consisting of members from different parts of the world for a global assessment). As for many World Heritage properties, an Furthermore, any development project re- inscription ceremony took place in Dres- quires the application of the procedures de- den on 24 June 2005, at which the Director Informationen zur Raumentwicklung Heft 3/4.2011 207 © Henry Ripke Architekten Dresden Elbe Valley with Waldschlößchen bridge (draft) of the World Heritage Centre transmitted NGO visited the World Heritage Centre and the official certificate signed by the Director expressed their concerns. A second letter General of UNESCO and gave a speech. He dating from 12 September 2005 and a third specifically reminded the local authorities one dating from 14 November 2005 was sent that with the inscription also the obliga- by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre to in- tions under the international legal instru- quire about the situation. On 24 November ment of the World Heritage Convention 2005 the Mayor of Dresden finally replied needed to be taken into account. and submitted documentation with a map, Just before the inscription ceremony the is- the Infrastructure Plan of the City of Dres- sue of an Elbe crossing, the so-called Wald- den, an extract of the Design Competition schlößchen bridge, came up in the local for the bridge, planning laws and regulations and national press. The first monitoring under municipal responsibility. Information letter by the World Heritage Centre to the on the juridical discussion was still missing. State Party concerning the Waldschlößchen bridge was sent on 13 April 2005. However, no official information was provided to the 5 Independent Impact Assessment World Heritage Centre on the decision to halt the planning on 23 September 2004 During a meeting at UNESCO Headquar- by the City Council due to the fact that the ters concerning this situation, the Director majorities in the meantime had changed of the World Heritage Centre suggested to or on the public vote (Referendum), which carry out an independent visual impact as- had taken place on 27 February 2005. The sessment to fully understand any potential result of the Referendum was that a slight impacts on the outstanding universal value majority was in favour of the building of the and integrity of the property. At this meet- bridge and thus the City Council was forced ing the German National Commission for to resume the planning on 7 April 2005.