BRUGES A WORLD HERITAGE CITY IN FLANDERS

BRUGES
A WORLD HERITAGE CITY
    IN FLANDERS

Content
• Introduction :
     World Heritage Convention 1972
• Intermezzo Belgium State Party to this
  Convention
• Case Study Bruges
• How to save Kashgar ???

World Heritage Convention 1972
 • Aim :
Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage of Outstanding Universal Value
(OUV)
 • Situation 2010 :
Ratification by 187 State Parties
911 WH properties in 151 State Parties
704 Cultural Properties
180 Natural Properties
27 Mixed

OUV
• OUV : very exceptional cultural and/or
  natural significance :
    - transcending national boundaries
    - being of common importance for the
      present and future generations of all
      humanity
    - protection of the highest importance to
      the international community as a
      whole

Duties of State Parties to the
             Convention
• Ensure the identification, protection,
  conservation?of their own heritage
• Adopt a general policy in order to give it a
  function in the life of the community
• Integrate their heritage in planning
  programmes
• Identify and delineate on their territory the
  OUV properties and, as unique initiator,
  propose their nomination

CONDITIONS
• Official/legal or « traditional » protection of
  the proposed property
• Guarantee for management, monitoring?
• Preliminary inscription on the Tentative
  List of the State Party
• Comply with at least one of the criterions
  defined by the WH Committee +
  requested authenticity and integrity
  proving OUV

Criterions Cultural Heritage
• (i) masterpiece of human creative genius
• (ii) important interchange of human values
      (architecture, technology, town and landscape
      design
• (iii) unique testimony to a cultural tradition?
• (iv) type of building, ensemble..related to
  significant stage(s) in human history
• (v) outstanding example of human settlement
  related to its environment?
• (vi) association with intangible values ?of OUV

Authenticity - Integrity
 • Authenticity concerns variety of attributes
as form, design, materials, use and function, traditions,
techniques, location and setting
« evolutive authenticity »

 • Integrity has to do with wholeness and intactness
related to:
the presence of necessary elements expressing the
OUV, the property’s significance,
the relevant state of conservation?

Consequences of the nomination
     National / International
• Obligation to keep the WH property and its
  environment in a state that not affects its OUV
• Possibility for concerned people to inform the
  WH Committee about problems, neglects,
  degradation?
• Fully respect of the Sovereignity of the
  concerned State Parties but
• Obligatory recognition that the protection? of
  WH properties and their environment concerns
  the international community which can intervene
  if necessary

Advantages
• Highest form of Heritage appreciation
• Inclusion in the widely spread WH List
  (publications, on line ?)
• Solidarity among the State Parties :
   exchanges of experiences, experts
• Possibility to get international assistance
  (World Heritage Fund?)
• Promotion of tourism (eventual danger!)

Belgium State Party to the
       Convention since 1996
• Ratification at the FEDERAL LEVEL
• Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels as REGIONS /
  responsible for the immovable heritage
• First « global »Tentative List introduced in 1997;
  last updating 2008 / 16 properties
• Inscriptions in 1998, 1999, 2000?2005, 2009 :
  10 WH properties
• Member of the elected WH Committee
• (21 States): end 1999 – 2003.

CASE STUDY BRUGES
        nomination process (1)
• Nomination dossier introduced with
  approval of the Federal and Regional
  Authorities in 1999
• Format of the Operational Guidelines
    (general context, justification, criteria (ii),(iv),(vi),
     guarantees, management, monitoring?
    documentation, maps, plans?
• Collaboration of a private Bureau with the
  Bruges municipal services and the
  Flemish Monuments Board (advice,
  consultancy)

CASE STUDY BRUGES
            nomination process (2)
• Examination of the nomination dossier

- “Check” -Visit of the ICOMOS delegate February 2000,
report for ICOMOS, contact with local, regional authorities,
authors dossier ; no problem with plans new Concert Hall
- Examination of the dossier and delegate’s report by the
ICOMOS Executive
- Submission of the final ICOMOS Evaluation with advice and
recommendations to the WH Bureau and Committee
- Final presentation, discussion and decision during the
Committee Meeting in Cairns (Australia), December 2000
- Press Campaign : positive perception; justification of local pride
- Official Celebration in Bruges

Bruges World Heritage
             approved criterions
(ii): The Historic Town of Brugge is testimony, over a long
   period, of a considerable exchange of influences on the
   development of architecture, particularly in brick Gothic, as
   well as favouring innovative artistic influences in the
   development of medieval painting, being the birthplace of the
   school of the Flemish Primitives.

(iv): The Historic Town of Brugge is an outstanding example of
     an architectural ensemble, illustrating significant stages in
     the commercial and cultural fields in medieval Europe, of
     which the public, social, and religious institutions are a living
     testimony.

(vi): The Town of Brugge was birthplace of the Flemish
   Primitives and a centre of patronage and development of
   painting in the Middle Ages with artists such as Jan van Eyck
   and Hans Memling.

Delineation

Case study Bruges general background
Monuments policy at the local level since
mid 19th century; concept
heritage/historical town since 1970 –
1975... Ongoing conflict between
historicism and modernism :

Success inscription related to Bruges
Europe Cultural Capital of Europe 2002
Previous restorations/renovation : official
subsidies (local – regional) and private
sponsors.
Events: “historical” and contemporaneous

Case study Bruges 2000 -2010
New incentives by local authorities : concert hall
 • Instigation to contemporary architecture has
   perceptive effect on local architecture
 • New perception on Bruges :
- Architects and urbanists: positive about
the new image and possibilities
- Local citizens, tourists, local heritage
committees react against the so called
“destruction of the historical city landscape
and architecture and contact ICOMOS and WH
(similar situation in other WH Cities all over the
World )

Case study Bruges
actual situation : results of complains                                      2008
 • “Check” visit in situ by WHC and ICOMOS delegates 2010
contacts with regional, local authorities and societies?:
 • Conclusions of the mission : gradual erosion of the attributes that convey the OUV

  • Recommandations 2010
- protect the whole inscribed WH-Historical Centre legally as urban landscape (???)
- study of specific areas and definition of urban typology and conditions for
development
- promote clearer links between development and conservation by incorporating
heritage in regional planning
- identify views from and towards Historical Centre and incorporate them
consecutively in urban documents
- strengthen the governance and incorporate it in urban plan respecting the
Statement of OUV
  • - Examine the possibility of establishing a advisory panel of experts to be consulted
for important projects in the WH historical centre (???)
  • Deadlines WHC / February 1 2011/ Statement OUV WH Committee Session 2012
February 1 2012 Detailed Report on progress of the implementation of the
recommendation : idem

Temporary (?) reactions :
                  Bruges and elsewhere
 • In Bruges : growing discrepancy in perception
Questioning of importance of WH inscription
- Does Bruges really need it ?
- Bruges must have the opportunity to develop and contribute to the
future heritage
- No « cheese cover » over Bruges?
- Bruges can manage by itself and is well known enough as such
 • Elsewhere :
- less enthusiasm for WH inscriptions and consequences at local
levels ( no immediate financial advantages !)
- some aversion for “external” – “international” control and
interventions concerning heritage, town planning at the local level
and in so-called “emancipated towns”
- new discussions “conservatism” – “modernism”
•   :

How to safe Kasghgar ???
• World Heritage (whc.unesco.org)
• 1985 Convention ratified by China
• 2008 Chinese section of the Silk Road included in the Chinese
  Tentative List : no mention of Kasgar
• Nomination dossier will be serial transboundary
 • ICOMOS, Advisory body (www.icomos.org)
- Could ask in its evaluation of the WH nomination dossier why Kagsar
was not selected
 • Since 2000 – 2001 : Yearly report “Heritage at risk”
 • Information normally provided by National ICOMOS Committees : no
   such a Committee in China
• World Monuments Fund (www.wmf.org)
 • seats USA & Europe/PariW watch dog function
 • Each 2 yearly publication : “100 most endangered sites (1996 –
    2010?. www.mfm.org/watch
 • Deadline for 2012: March 15th 2011 see Guidelines
- Results !!!