Issues of Buffer Zone management of UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Sites Located in the urban area of East Asian countries

Rieko Kubota1 1

Ph.D Candidate, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Ritsumeikan University

Abstract As of now, buffer zone to the UNESCO World Heritage Site is defined as, “an area surrounding the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection” in UNESCO’s Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention (Hereinafter referred to as “Operational Guidelines”). The concept of boundaries of inscribed site has been introduced in the Operational Guidelines, not in the World Heritage Convention itself. Since the first appearance of buffer zone in Operational Guidelines in 1977, the concept of buffer zone has been repeatedly revised and modified until present days. Due to the fact the buffer zone, in many countries, is not legally binding yet, it corresponds to the zones of jurisdiction set by the state party. This resulted in the situation the nomination and management of the buffer zone to the World Heritage sites has been rather ambiguous. Therefore, through examining the UNESCO documents, this paper observes the development of concept of buffer zone especially in the urban area, and moreover, identifies the issues of buffer zone management of the World cultural heritage sites located in the urban area of Japan, China and Korea. Keywords: World Cultural Heritage, Buffer zone, Operational guidelines, East Asian countries, Urban area

1. Introduction This paper attempts to clarify the change of buffer zone concept of the World Heritage Committee, and articulate the buffer zone management issues in urban cities of East Asian countries. Buffer zone to the UNESCO World Heritage Site has been introduced in the Operational Guidelines initially in the year of 1977, since then, the concept has been treated in every version of Operational Guidelines. However, in the cases of early nomination, especially until the early 90’s, the buffer zone requirements seemed to be less stringent compared to those sites inscribed after late 90’s. Even in case the buffer zone boundaries are clearly defined, the conditions within the zone may not be specified or made clear, and appear unsupported by local legislation of any kind. 1

As the “Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia”2 stresses, “Unlike historical monuments or archaeological sites, living urban settlements often have no institutional custodian. It is therefore important that an administrative and decision-making body be formed which combines local government, business community representation with professional conservation and planning expertise. The function of this body is to plan long-term integrated conservation and urban improvement.” The statistics witnesses that China is rapidly growing at the average rate of 9.6% in the last ten years3, while Korea and Japan are also encountering the urban redevelopment and rural to urban migration. East Asian countries have been undoubtedly experiencing the economic development. On one hand, economic prosperity brings in the wealth in the urban area, however, on the other hand, it causes the urbanization, eventually leads to the erosion of the historical and cultural fabric in the urban area.

Therefore, this paper especially focuses on the issue related to the buffer zone of the World Cultural Heritage sites located in the urban area of the East Asian countries, namely, Japan, China and Korea. Extracting from the current World Cultural heritage sites inscribed in the World Heritage list, as shown in the table 1, there has been 19 sites that exists in the urban areas in this region. As a methodology to emerge the issues of buffer zone management in urban areas of East Asian countries, the relevant UNESCO documents from 1977 to the present days are analyzed. Among the other documents, the principle documents examined include the report of decision4 by the World Heritage Committee and Operational Guidelines. There have been several literatures dealt with the buffer zone to the World Heritage. Kuze(2003) 5 has traced the development and change of implication to the meaning of buffer zone from the first introduction in the 1977 version of Operational Guidelines, however, the paper has concluded with the mention of further needs in study of relationship of potential risk to the heritage and buffer zone. Furthermore, Kuze(2004) 6 categorized the timing and contents of recommendations by the World Heritage Committee according to the Heritage types and identified the issue of buffer zone is not solely a matter of the landscape of the property and the surrounding areas, but also is a matter of integrity of the site. Song and Ikeda(2010) 7 grasped the law and regulations related to the buffer zone area and its surrounding area of World Heritage sites in Okinawa. The study took three case studies of three inscribed sites and figured there’s a certain degree of positive effects of buffer zone in regulating the development of the area. However, it noted the possible problems of the landscape in the surrounding area of buffer zone and suggested the setting of buffer zone should be reconsidered. Examining the previous papers about the buffer zone management, it is clear that the buffer zone is chiefly considered as a regulation to control the landscape and view of World Heritage sites. However, from observing the recent buffer zone issues occurred at the World Heritage sites, the other aspect than the landscape should be considered and reinforced in the buffer zone of the urban area. Table.1 World Cultural Heritage Sites located in the urban area in Japan, China and Korea Japan Country Name of property Himeji-jo Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome) Itsukushima Shinto Shrine Japan Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara Shrines and Temples of Nikko (Part of) Gusuku Sites and Related Properties of the Kingdom of Ryukyu (Tamaudun, Sonohyan-utaki Ishimon, Shuri-jô and Shikinaen only) China Country

China

Name of property Imperial Palaces of the Ming and Qing Dynasties in Beijing and Shenyang Mountain Resort and its Outlying Temples, Chengde The ancient building complex in the Wudang Mountains Temple and Cemetery of Confucius and the Kong Family Mansion in Qufu

Location Peking Municipality ,Shenyang Chengde City, Hebei Province Danjiangkou City, Hubei Province Qufu City, Shandong Province Lhasa, Tibet Autonomous Region

Ancient city of Ping Yao

Historic Centre of Macao

Ping Yao County, Shan Xi Province Lijiang's old town (including the Dayan old town, Basha housing cluster and Shuhe housing cluster) Tiantan Park, Beijing Yi County, Huangshan City, Anhui Province Macao Special Administrative Region

Name of property Jongmyo Shrine Changdeokgung Palace Complex Hwaseong Fortress

Location Seoul, Korea Seoul, Korea Kyonggi-do Province

Temple of Heaven: an Imperial Sacrificial Altar in Beijing Ancient Villages in Southern Anhui – Xidi and Hongcun

Korea

Naha city, Okinawa prefecture

Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa

Old town of Li Jiang

Korea Country

Location year of inscription Himeji city, Hyogo prefecture 1993 Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities 1994 Hiroshima city, Hiroshima prefecture 1996 Hatsukaichi city, Hiroshima prefecture 1996 Nara city, Nara prefecture 1998 Nikko city, Tochigi prefecture 1999 2000

year of inscription 1987 (extended in 2004) 1994 1994 1994 1994 (Extended in 2000, 2001) 1997 1997 1998 2000 2005

year of inscription 1995 1997 1997

2. Background and development of concept of Buffer zone In the Operational Guidelines, buffer zone is mentioned in the version of 1977, in the part of recommendations to state parties. Therefore, again, the state parties are only recommended, not required, to enforce the buffer zone arrangement in the respective laws and regulation. Then, the first appearance of words “buffer zone” in World heritage committee decision was in 1979, a little after the concept was introduced in the Operational Guidelines. The buffer zone was mentioned in the part of Revision of the Nomination Form as following; “The form should emphasize the importance of adequate buffer zones and ask for details on measures taken by the State Party on the establishment of such zones”. As Kubota and Kim(2010) 8 has discussed, it is highly recognizable that the World Heritage Committee started to take note on the management of the property through observing the questions set of the Periodic reporting which the UNESCO requires the state parties to reply every six years. Among the management issue, the rise in number of questions indicates the Committee and the World Heritage Centre pay more attention to the buffer zone management. The committee introduced the section of “Monitoring the status of conservation of properties included in the World Heritage list” 9 from the 1986 as part of the discussion at the annual World Heritage committee. The number of cases with recommendation in the improvement of buffer zone management is increasing as the idea of monitoring and management of the World Heritage sites become a norm. To take a closer look at the emergence of the relationship between the buffer zone management of World Heritage sites and master plan in the urban area in the discussion of the committee, one of the first cases deferred due to this was the inscription of the case of The Old Town Zamousc in Poland which was made decision in the 15th session of committee held in 1991. The committee pointed out the boundary of buffer zone in the city master plan was ambiguous. Therefore, the committee requested the Poland’s authority to provide the plan clearly showing the boundary of buffer zone. Table 2. The change in description of buffer zone in the Operational Guidelines from 1978 to 2005 Year

Description of buffer zone

1978

When setting boundary of property to be nominated to the list, the concept of buffer zone around the property may be applied where appropriate and feasible. In such instances the nominations would include: (a) a precise definition of the surface area of the property itself, including the sub-surface area where necessary; and (b) an indication of the buffer zone around the property itself (i.e. the national or man-made surroundings that influece the physical state of the property or the way in which the property is perceived). Such buffer zone would be determined in each case through technical studies and provided with adequeate protection.

1980

Whenever necessary for the proper conservation of a cultural or natural property nominated, an adequate "buffer zone" around a property should be foreseen and should be afforded the necessary protection. A buffer zone can be defined as an area surrounding the property which has an essential influence on the physical state of the property and/or on the way in which the property is perceived; the area constituting the buffer zone should be determined in each case through technical studies. Details on the size and characteristics of a buffer zone, as well as a map indicating its precise boundaries, should be procided in the nomination file to the property in question.

1988

Whenver necessary for the proper conservation of a cultural or natural property nominated, an adequate "buffer zone" around a property should be provided and should be afforded the necessary protection. A buffer zone can be definded as an area surrounding the property which as restrictios placed on its use to give an added layer or protection; the area constituting the buffer zone should be determined in each case through technical studies. Details on the size, characteristics and authorized uses of a buffer zone, as well as a map indicating its precise boundaries, should be provided in the nomination file relating to the property in question.

2005-2008

103. Wherever necessary for the proper conservation of the property, an adequate buffer zone should be provided. 104. For the purposes of effective protection of the nominated property, a buffer zone is an area surrounding the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection. The area constituting the buffer zone should be determined in each case through appropriate mechanisms. Details on the size, characteristics and authorized uses of a buffer zone, as well as a map indicating the precise boundaries of the property and its buffer zone, should be provided in the nomination. 105. A clear explanation of how the buffer zone protects the property should also be provided. 106. Where no buffer zone is proposed, the nomination should inculde a statement as to why a buffer zone is not required. 107. Although buffer zones are not normally part of the nominated property, any modifications to the buffer zone subsequent to inscription of a property on the World Heritage List should be approved by the World Heritage Committee.

3. Threats encountered by the Heritages in East Asian urban cities In short, the threats encountered by the heritages in urban settings of East Asian countries can be summarized in two words. Tourism and development. As you can see in the Table 3, most of the issues raised by the World Heritage Committee were related to the threats to the integrity and authenticity of the cultural heritage values caused by the increased number of tourists and overwhelming development in the urban area. In that context, first state of conservation report taken at the World Heritage Committee was the “Mountain Resort and its Outlying Temples in Chengde city” in China as shown in the Table 3. With the recommendation of the committee to the Chinese authority in 1996, the Chinese authority adopted the development plan in line with the World Heritage needs. After then, though the city planning department of the Chengde city has included the protection of World Heritage in the city’s urban development plan, the property was continuously threatened by the development and tourism pressures within the buffer zone. The state of conservation report of Chengde city was not submitted after the report at the Committee in 1998. Another case with continuous discussion on the state of conservation was in the “Old town of Lijiang” in China, the site inscribed in 1997. The first recommendation by the Committee was in 2007 for the “uncontrolled tourism and other development projects” in the surrounding area of the property after receiving a shocking report by the international conservation experts, the town superficially preserving the physical appearance of the town, yet destroying its character of the town by replacing the traditional shop houses with stereotyped tourists shops and cafes. According to the information received when the UNESCO-ICOMOS mission team was dispatched in 2008, from 1997 to 2007, old town’s visitor number grew from 1,733,200 tourist arrivals 4,600,900 arrivals10. Lijiang city reports the number of tourists exceeded more than 5.1 millions in 200911. With the concern of outgrowing development in Lijiang, the World Heritage Committee requested to assess the state of conservation to the UNESCO and ICOMOS, therefore the mission team was dispatched to Lijiang in January of 2008 12. The mission team focused on the examination of the impact of tourist-related activities and other proposed development projects on the authenticity and integrity of both tangible and intangible heritage values of the site, further assessed the efficiency of current management mechanism in protecting heritage values of the property. The mission team found that, though the outstanding universal value of the property is still retained in spite of the large influx of the tourists, there are several ongoing large-scale redevelopment projects which may affect the property’s integrity. For example, due to the boom of tourism, strong development pressure affects the building use of the property but also affected by the new development of the hotels and souvenir shops to accommodate the increasing number of tourists in buffer zone. Commercialization and commodification of the indigenous Naxi and Donba culture results in the development, and, at the same time, there are also the result of development. Looking at outside of the East Asian region, buffer zone management in urban setting had been pointed out at the Committee recently. The most controversial case was the case of the World Heritage site in Germany. “Cologne Cathedral” has depicted the issue of conflict between the cultural landscape and urban development and well-discussed as a case study of buffer zone management. The site was inscribed in 1996. At the time of inscription, the Committee has already requested the city government to set the buffer zone, however, the city did not take the advice then. After all, the city has conducted the city re-development competition on the opposite side of river from the Cologne cathedral and selected the project of high-rise buildings in 2001. Moreover, Landschaftverband Rheinland, the regional league of Rheinland also built the tall building without a permission of the city government. UNESCO has taken this as a serious threat to the retention of Outstanding Universal Value. Therefore, the site has been listed in the danger’s list of World Heritage in 2004. After all, the city has reconsidered the situation, the loss of World Heritage status will damage the city’s tourism impact which may lead to the worse situation of economy in Cologne where experiences the economic stagnation. The site was removed from the danger’s list after the city’s

reconsideration of buffer zone settings. East Asian region should not look at this case as a fire on the other side of the coast. Similar case can be found on the table 3 where the buffer zone issues are already aware by the Committee, but there may be more issues which may need an appropriate action. Those issues are not yet discussed at the table of Committee, nevertheless, this does not mean that those sites may face the similar situation akin to the case of Cologne. Table. 3 Table of the WHS in the urban area in East Asian countries recommended for discussion on buffer zone management by the World Heritage Committee Priority

Mountain Resort and its Outlying Temples, Chengde

The Potala Palace, Lhasa

Shrines and Temples of Nikko Imperial Palaces of the Ming and Qing Dynasties in Beijing and Shenyang

Year of Issue raised by the committee Committee decision

Requests to respective authority

encouraged to take appropriate measures to integrate 1998 Urban and tourism development pressure within the buffer zone tourism development and urban heritage conservation issues in the Management Plan of the site.

demolition of historic buildings and new construction 1998 activities and necessity in extending the boundaries of properties

1999 Development pressure near the south-east border of the site

requested the State Party for additional information concerning Barkhor historic area which is also part of the extension area recommended by the Committee at the time of the inscription of this site. N/A

2003 Urban development pressure in Beijing city

Strengthen the legal provision for the protection of buffer zones

the Temple of Heaven and the Summer Palace

2003 Urban development pressure in Beijing city

Encourage to take an effort to protect the urban historic fabric of Beijing city

Imperial Palaces of the Ming and Qing Dynasties in Beijing and Shenyang

2004 Encroachment in the environment of the property

Rigorous control is recommended on land-use control in the buffer zone

Old Town of Lijiang

2007 Uncontrolled tourism and other development projects

Prepare a proposal for the boundaries of the core and buffer zones of the areas of Baisha and Shuhe

Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara

2007

Old Town of Lijiang

Historic Centre of Macao

Conduct the EIA of the project Development project of Yamato-Kita new highway project plan and share the result of EIA outside the core and periphery of the buffer zone of property with the World Heritage Centre

2008 Uncontrolled tourism and other development projects

Complete the comprehensive conservation master plan, which should provide overarching principles for regional development and tourism control as well as conservation guidelines, together with the Site management plan

Ongoing development project in the surrounding area of buffer zone to the property

Request to mitigate possible negative impacts of development projects on the visual integrity of the World Heritage property by reducing height limits for construction in sensitive areas surrounding the Guia Hill and the Monte Fortress

2008

Table 3. (cont’d)

Historic Monuments of Ancient Nara

Old Town of Lijiang

Historic Centre of Macao

Takes note with satisfaction of the fact that the proposed construction of the Yamato-Kita Development project of Yamato-Kita new highway project 2008 outside the core and periphery of the buffer zone of property Road will not impact negatively on the Outstanding Universal Value and integrity of the property;

2009 Uncontrolled tourism and other development projects

2009

Ongoing development project in the surrounding area of buffer zone to the property

Requests to consider a resubmission of a request for minor modification to the buffer zones and the possibility of an extension to the boundaries of the property in order to protect the property and the area between its three components Requests to develop the appropriate legal and planning tools to protect these linkages, including a comprehensive urban plan that seeks to protect the heritage significance of what is left of the historic urban landscape that contributes to the setting and views of the property.

4. Conclusion Compared to the time when the discussion on buffer zone started in the 1970’s, the establishment of buffer zone has become more stringent at the stage of nomination and also at the time after the inscription of the site. The concept of buffer zone has already been widely known in the course of years, nevertheless, the operational legal frameworks or planning tools are yet to be developed or implemented in a lot of countries. The recommendation of the World Heritage Committee suggests the World Cultural Heritage Sites in Asian urban fabric are more or less encountering the threats of the development and tourism pressures. The recommendation given to each sites on the table 3 also implies there are not sufficient legal and planning tools to protect the properties in a comprehensive way. As we have observed in the case of Lijiang, the common problems encountered by these sites are the rapid growth of tourism at the site and accordingly, the development pressures has increased. Considering the cases of Chengde city and Lijiang suggested, there could be many more sites in East Asia where are threatened by the development pressures, however, the cases not recognized or discussed at the level of World Heritage Committee. In terms of World Heritage sites in urban area, the Dutch approach to buffer zones presented at the international expert meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones held in November of 2006 11 suggested the alternative approach which we should take into consideration in the future. The main strategy used in Dutch heritage management to deal with the development inside the buffer zone, quoted from the words of Mr. Leonard de Wit of Netherlands Heritage Amersfoort in Netherlands, is described as “Preservation by development”. This idea is to consider the cultural heritage values a starting point for development. Due to the unstoppable development in the urban area, Mr. de Wit suggested the heritage managers may need to change the view point to shift the focus from stopping the development from using the development as a tool to protect the cultural heritage. From the finding of this paper, the further study is needed on existence of legal framework for buffer zones and actual instruments provided to fulfill the rules set by the legal framework. Putting stress on the instrument under the legal framework, this paper would propose the possible role of buffer zone, which is to provide the legally effective framework within the zoning not only to mitigate the negative impacts on the

views and landscape surrounding the property but also to mitigate the potential threats rooted in development, such as the proper management of the tangible and intangible cultural heritages, the control on transfer of ownership of property in buffer zone, and form of administration and decision making body to implement the management plan. This may be the forward approach to appropriately protect the cultural values and integrity of the World Cultural Heritage sites especially in the urban areas where encounters the rapid development and dense population. However, it may be the way to co-utilize the conservation and the development. 5.References 1) UNESCO, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, 1977-2008 2) UNESCO Bangkok, Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia, UNESCO Bangkok Office, English, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001826/182617e.pdf, 2010.11.05 3) Chinability, China’s Gross of Domestic Products Growth rate, English, http://www.chinability.com/GDP.htm, 2010. 11.05 4) UNESCO World Heritage Commitee, Report of the Decisions Adopted By the world heritage committee, 1977-2010 5) Keiji Kuze, バッファーゾーンの成立、制度的意味とその課題, Research reports of Kanto Brunch of Architectural Institute of Japan, 2003, 473-476 6) Keiji Kuze, A Study on Problems Relating to Buffer Zone-Classification on the Convention and on the Content of Argument, 2004, Research reports of Hokkaido Brunch of Architectural Institute of Japan, 513-514 7) Xiaojing Song and Takayuki Ikeda , A Study on the landscape preservation and formation in Ryukyu World Heritages’ buffer zone area and its surrounding area –Taking Shuri castle, Nakagusuku castle, Seifa Utaki areas as study cases- , Vol. 75 No. 652 of Journal of Architectural Planning, Architectural Institute of Japan, 1463-1470 8) Rieko Kubota and Minsuk Kim, A Study on the issue of UNESCO World Cultural Heritage management in Japan and Korea, proceedings of 8th ISAIA conference, 2010, page number unknown 9) UNESCO World Heritage Centre, World Heritage and Buffer zones, World Heritage papers 25, 2009 10) UNESCO WHC-ICOMOS, Mission Report of mission to the Old Town in Lijiang China, UNESCO, 17 11) UNESCO, Presentation of the Results of the International Expert Meeting on World Heritage and Buffer Zones of 32 nd committee report of World Heritage Committee, Kyushu University, English, http://quris.law.kyushu-u.ac.jp/programsinenglish/hiroshima/papers.htm, 2010.11.01