《世界遗产观察组织(WHW):2024年度世界遗产观察报告(英文版)(232页).pdf》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《世界遗产观察组织(WHW):2024年度世界遗产观察报告(英文版)(232页).pdf(232页珍藏版)》请在三个皮匠报告上搜索。
1、World Heritage Watch Report 2024World Heritage WatchWorld Heritage WatchWorld Heritage Watch Report 2024Berlin 20242 Bibliographical InformationWorld Heritage Watch:World Heritage Watch Report 2024.Berlin 2024228 pages with 296 photos,30 graphics and 52 maps in 55 contributionsPublished by World Her
2、itage Watch e.V.Berlin 2024ISBN 978-3-00-079183-3NE:World Heritage Watch1.World Heritage 2.Civil Society 3.UNESCO 4.Heritage at Risk 5.Natural Heritage 6.Cultural Heritage 7.Historic Cities 8.Sites 9.Monuments 10.Cultural Landscapes 11.Indigenous Peoples 12.ParticipationWorld Heritage Watch World He
3、ritage Watch e.V.2024This work with all its parts is protected by copyright.Any use beyond the strict limits of the applicable copyright law without the consent of the publisher is inadmissible and punishable.This refers especially to reproduction of figures and/or text in print or xerography,transl
4、ations,microforms and the data storage and processing in electronic systems.The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinions whatsoever on the part of the publishers concerning the legal status of any country or territory
5、or of its authorities,or concerning the frontiers of any country or territory.The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this book and for the opin-ions expressed therein,which are not necessarily those of the editors,and do not commit them.No part of t
6、his publication may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publishers except for the quotation of brief passages for the purposes of review.No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publishers except for the quotation of brie
7、f passages for the purposes of review.Editorial TeamStephan Doempke(chief editor),Sayali Athale and Zhuo Diao.Map editors:Sayali Athale,Martin Lenk Cover photos:Upper left:The Mittelplate oil drilling and production platform is surrounded by the Wadden Sea World Heritage.Photo:Wintershall Dea/Andrea
8、 FreyUpper right:Tourism infrastructure development of gigantic proportions within the St.Catherine Area World Heritage,Egypt.Photo:AnonymousLower left:Protesters warn the zipline planned to run from Rio de Janeiros Sugarloaf Rountain to Morro da Urca could harm the local environment and wildlife.Ph
9、oto:Carl de Souza/AFPLower right:The Lingering Garden,one of the Classical Gardens of Suzhou,China.Photo:https:/ Back cover map:Martin LenkCover Design:Bianka Gericke www.layoutmanufaktur.deDesign and layout:Bianka Gericke www.layoutmanufaktur.dePrinted by:Buch-und Offsetdruckerei H.Heenemann GmbH&C
10、o.KG,Berlin3Contents Preface .7Maritta von Bieberstein Koch-Weser and Stephan DoempkeDr Kate Fielden 1944 2023 .9by Tom Holland1I.Monuments and Sites 11The Fate of Stonehenge is still Hanging in the Air.12John Adams with Kate Freeman,The Stonehenge AllianceAbusive Planning Application within UNESCO
11、Buffer Zone of the gantija Temples .15Joerg Sicot,Flimkien gal Ambjent AjarThe Acropolis of Athens:A Story of Arrogance and Fallacy.17Tasos Tanoulas on behalf of Hellenic ICOMOS and SOS AcropolisThe Expansion of Catholic Iconography in the Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba.23Vanesa Menndez MonteroVisitor
12、Management Issues of the Hagia Sophia Indicate That it Should Have Remained a Museum .26Anonymous authorThe Monastery of Chora in Istanbul and the Role of UNESCO .31Helen MethodiouTauric Chersonesos is being Destroyed by the Occupying Russian Authorities.34Evelina KravchenkoCommunity Management Afte
13、r Recent Damages at Petra Archaeological Park,Jordan .39Maria Elena Ronza and Samah Jazi Faisal Al Khasoneh,Sela for Training and Protection of HeritageWhat do we Know About the Sites on the Tentative List for World Heritage in Gaza?.42The Destruction of the St Catherine Area,South Sinai,Egypt.47Joh
14、n Grainger,Joseph Hobbs,Mohanned Sabry and others1The World Heritage Sites in Sudan are Under Attack.54Awad Abdalla Masaoud,Sudan Cultural Heritage ReliefCultural Heritage Damaged from Warface in Tigray Regional State,Ethopia.56Isber Sabrine,Heritage for PeaceAtsbha Gebreegziabher,Tigrai Culture and
15、 Tourism BureauRecent Findings on Forced Evictions Taking Place at Angkor,Cambodia .62Amnesty International4 II.Historic Cities and Urban Ensembles 69St.Petersburg:Destruction of Monuments at the Okhta Cape has Begun .70Anonymous authorsMonument Protection Obstructs Climate Protection at the Waldsie
16、dlung Berlin-Zehlendorf .74Ute Scheub,Parrot Estate AssociationGoslar A World Heritage Site Between Self-abandonment and Decay.77Henning FrasePlans to Damage the Integrity of Viennas Historic Centre Continue .81Herbert Rasinger,Initiative StadtbildschutzVenice has no more time.84Jane da Mosto,We Are
17、 Here VeniceSafranbolu Municipality Plans to Open Natural Areas to Construction.85brahim Canbulat,M.Arch.Destructive Development at Hebron/Al-Khalil Old Town Sites Core and Buffer Zones.88Alon Arad and Talya Ezrahi,Emek ShavehIII.Cultural Landscapes and Mixed Properties 93The Intended Zipline on Rio
18、 de Janeiros Sugar Loaf Mountain Remains Strongly Contested .94Andr Ilha,Grupo Ao Ecolgica(GAE)New Construction at the Curonian Spit Threatens its Outstanding Universal Value.99Ecodefense!Motorised Use of Green Lanes in the Lake District Continues After UNESCO Decision.103Lake District Green Lanes A
19、llianceProsecco Hills:Deforestation and Earthworks Continue Even Five Years After Inscription .105Gianluigi Salvador,Pesticide Action Network ItalyAustria and Hungary Continue to Threaten the Fert/Lake Neusiedl Cultural Landscape .108Zoltan Kun,Friends of the Fert Lake AssociationDisillusionment and
20、 Decay:Time Ticks Out for the World Heritage Convention in Ohrid.111Daniel Scarry,Ohrid SOSDiyarbakr Fortress and Hevsel Gardens Cultural Landscape Monitoring and Evaluation Report .115Nevin Soyukaya,Samet Uaman,Ferit Kahraman,Pnar Can,Mahmut zkeskin,Zeki Kanay and Jiyan Aydn for the Diyar-bakr City
21、 Protection Platform(DCPP)Construction of Illegal Israeli Outpost Damages the WHS of Battir .1205Alon Arad,Emek ShavehEnvironmental and Socioeconomic Challenges of the Al-Hawizeh Marshes.127Salman Khairalla,Save the TigrisThreats to the Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Va
22、lley .129Abdurrahim AhmadiAccess to Monitoring and Reporting:A Case Study from the Classical Gardens of Suzhou .132Anonymous authorCornering the Subak:Threats from Development Planning in Balis Cultural Landscape.135Wiwik Dharmiasih,Yefta Sutrisno,I Gede Yudha Bhismaya,Ni Luh Emi DwiyantiConstant Vi
23、gilance Required in the Tasmanian Wilderness.138Jimmy Cordwell and Alice Hardinge,The Wilderness SocietyIV.Properties with Indigenous Peoples 141A Review of the 2022 Reactive Monitoring Mission to Wood Buffalo National Park .142Braya Quilty and Carmen Wells,Fort Chipewyan Metis NationMajor Progress
24、and a Remaining Threat for the Protection of the Grand Canyon .145Gnter Wippel,uranium networkContinued Request to Inscribe El Pinacate on the List of World Heritage in Danger .149Alejandro Olivera,Center for Biological DiversityCanaima National Park:Rising Threats and no Response from the Venezuela
25、n State .152SOS OrinocoStatement on Lake Bogoria from the Endorois Indigenous People of Kenya .156Endorois Welfare CouncilUpdate on the Eviction of the Maasai Population from the Ngorongoro Conservation Area .157Anonymous authorReconAfrica and Namibia are ignoring all international decisions:Drillin
26、g to continue in June 2024 .161Andy Gheorghiu,Saving Okavangos Unique Life(SOUL)Alliance V.Natural Properties 163More Action Needed for the Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California .164Alejandro Olivera on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity,Animal Welfare Institute,Natural Re
27、sources Defense Council and Environmental Investigation AgencyThe Galapagos Islands Fulfill the Criteria to be Included on the List of World Heritage In Danger.167Alejandro Olivera,Center for Biological Diversity6 Tourism Pressures Undermine Protection of the Mosi-oa-Tunya/Victoria Falls .171Anonymo
28、us authorDemand for Energy Puts the Wadden Sea at Risk .175Deutsche Umwelthilfe,Aline Khl-Stenzel,Naturschutzbund Deutschland,Frank Petersen,Waddenvereniging,Hans-Ulrich Rsner,WWF DeutschlandSpring Rains and Paper Plans are not Enough to Save Doana from New Threats .179Teresa Gil Gil and Juanjo Carm
29、ona,WWF SpainChallenges and Uncertainties Continue for the Aeolian Islands World Heritage Site .181Francesco Vettore,Claudia Romagnoli,Pietro Lo CascioThe Western Caucasus Remains One of the Most Threatened Sites .185Anonymous authorsLegal Obstacles to the Implementation of the World Heritage Conven
30、tion in the Kazakhstan .189Valeriy Krylov,Sergey Kuratov and Nataliya Medvedeva,Ecological Society“Green Salvation”Imminent threats to the Western Tien Shan in Kyrgyzstan,Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.192Rivers Without BoundariesRogun Hydropower Project Threatens Tigrovaya Balka in Tajikistan.196Eugene
31、Simonov,Rivers without Boundaries CoalitionChronic Mismanagement and Weakened Protection of Lake Baikal .200Eugene Simonov,Rivers without Boundaries“Volcanoes of Kamchatka”has a Chance to Restore its Protection Status .203Anonymous authorsUNESCO/IUCN Must be Involved in the Sundarbans Strategic Envi
32、ronmental Management Plan .205Sharif Jamil and Sultana Kamal,National Committee for Saving the Sundarbans(NCSS)and Dhoritri Rokhhay Amra(DHORA)Northern Okinawa:A Review of Japanese and U.S.Measures of Conservation is Urgent .207Masami Mel Kawamura,Informed Public Project,Hideki Yoshikawa,Okinawa Env
33、ironmental Justice ProjectThe Great Barrier Reef:Australias Ongoing Climate Mitigation Failures .212Noni Austin,EarthjusticeAnnex 217The Authors7PrefaceThis is the 10th edition of the annual World Heritage Watch(WHW)Report since we started our work in 2014.Our global network has since grown to more
34、than 200 civil society actors in more than 60 countries.The World Heritage Watch Reports have become more voluminous over the years,reaching 55 contribu-tions this year.Every year,the World Heritage Watch Report is the same,yet also different.Sometimes there is a prepon-derance of natural sites,some
35、times one of cultural sites.Last year,we had to give special attention to dam-ages from a natural disaster,the earthquake in Turkey and Syria.This year,our attention has been drawn to the wider area of what is often called“the Holy Land”in the Middle East.The horrendous destruction of cultural herit
36、age in Gaza has been widely reported.But there has been destruction of mankinds common heritage also in sites on the West Bank,in Jordan,and on the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt.At the same time,internal warfare further south threatens World Heritage sites in Sudan,and it has led to widespread destructio
37、n of sites on the Tentative List in the Tigray State of Ethiopia,far from the eyes of the worlds attention,reminding us again that armed conflict,when it occurs,is still one of the biggest threats to both cultural and natural heritage.Nobody seems to be able to prevent the crimes committed in such c
38、onflicts,and World Heritage Watch can report about them only when the damage is done and priceless heritage is gone forever.Is our voice at least heard by those who are in charge of World Heritage,and if so,does it trigger action?Honestly,in most cases we do not know.For us,it is of greatest concern
39、 that a rich and powerful member of the World Heritage Committee claims not to have sufficient information about the damages to a World Heritage Site about which we have reported almost every year since we started.Who then takes note of our reports?What impact do we have?To which extent,if any,are a
40、lerts taken into account for the Decisions drafted by the World Heritage Centre?Again,we have information on some,but not others.Disequilibrium is another concern.We are alerted,and alert to threats and dangers to natural sites in remote places that may be lost forever without anyone even taking not
41、ice,such as in Central Asia.Meanwhile the biggest threat to all World Heritage sites,climate change is affecting ever larger parts of the Great Barrier Reef.But while this may make the news for a few days,we do not see the follow through urgently needed.Has the world at large already tacitly accepte
42、d the fact that such great places might be lost?World Heritage Sites have been listed to be protected“forever”,in perpetuity.To live up to that challeng-ing mandate,learning and adaptations over time are essential.For now,however,many cases painstakingly documented in our World Heritage Watch Report
43、s may be noted,but no appropriate action is taken.The opportunity offered by the 50th anniversary of the World Heritage Convention to make it fit for coming decades has been missed:We are still waiting for a concerted process of learning and systemic improve-ments.Among others,the detailed and const
44、ructive suggestions made by the WHW network in our Pots-dam Papers for improving the efficiency of the World Heritage Convention remains without response.People care for their World Heritage.This is why we continue to bring their concerns to the attention of the world public.Our hopes are set on tho
45、se willing to listen and to act.We hope more engaged State Parties 8 than at present will agree to serve on the World Heritage Committee.We hope for leadership ready to truly protect heritage without prioritizing their respective national or geo-political interests.This year,reading the report,frust
46、ration with the current UNESCO process is in your eye,especially in three of our network members reports.How can we create a stronger dynamic for the respect and protection of our heritage?From two of our network members,you can glean their frustration with the UNESCO system in this volume,a third o
47、ne refrained from even providing a written report.None of the three are in devel-oping countries they are all in Europe.Others contributed their reports without having hope for change.More and more,for safety reasons,authors opt to write anonymously,and some have left their homeland for fear of bein
48、g detained or silenced should they speak out.At World Heritage Watch,we continue to feel strongly about our mission.We believe that implementation of the Convention in perpetuity,site by site,depends to a large extent on the commitment of the broader population,on civil society.The positive evidence
49、 is there,alongside the shortcomings we demonstrate and deplore.Indeed,people do make a difference.Civil society action has managed to stop damages before it was too late.Early diagnosis,nipping destruction in the bud-for instance by identifying infrastructure plans that would,if realized,damage Wor
50、ld Heritage are our forte.After ten years a mere ten years,it seems our anniversary is a time to take stock and ask hard questions,about ourselves,about UNESCO and its State Parties,and best ways to heighten public attention.The idea that each of us considers the World Heritage to be the common heri
51、tage of all of us,and that each of us stands up for all of it,is a most beautiful and indeed cosmopolitan concept,that has a potential to bring people from all over the world together,transcending nationalities and religions.The global World Heritage Watch network is living proof of this.We demonstr
52、ate every day that it is pos-sible to create enthusiasm for this beautiful idea,and that we can turn this enthusiasm into action.We are convinced that the World Heritage is an asset for the future as much as it is a gift from the past.Our 10th anniversary is also an occasion to give special thanks t
53、o two persons who over all these years have helped make the WHW Report what it is.First,Bianka Gericke,our computer designer;she has provided the layout and design of all of our publications,working herself through texts and illustrations from incredibly diverse sources with immense patience and dil
54、igence while giving the publication its elegant and unmistak-able appearance.Second,Martin Lenk;he has contributed many of the detailed and aesthetic maps that would make any geographic publisher envious,including UNESCO itself.To both of them we owe more than we can express,and we hope that they wi
55、ll be with us for a long time to come.Maritta Koch-Weser,President Stephan Doempke,Chair World Heritage Watch 9Dr Kate Fielden 1944 2023by Tom Holland1 Kate Fielden,who has died aged 79 after a short illness,was many things an archaeologist,an editor,a curator but to me she seemed almost a tutelary
56、deity:the guardian spirit of Wiltshires ancient places,keeping watch over some of Britains most sacred landscapes.1I first met Kate in 2015,when she invited me to become president of the Stonehenge Alliance,a group opposed to destructive road developments in the Stonehenge landscape,and of which she
57、 was the leading light.She was the gentlest,politest,most self-effacing of women;but she was also the steeliest,the most formidable,the most forensic in defence of what she thought needed defending.As president I was only ever the merest figurehead;it was always Kate who was the doughtiest in fighti
58、ng the good fight.The oldest of the five children of Rosemary(nee Hinchcliffe)and John Fielden,Kate was born in Oldham,but during her childhood the family moved to the North Downs in Kent.Her father worked for a tea-importing business,her mother as a school secretary.Although a scholarship girl at W
59、althamstow Hall in Sevenoaks,on leaving school Kate did not initially go to university,but joined the Royal Navy,then worked as a teacher at Bayham Road primary school in Sevenoaks.Only in 1965 did she go to SOAS in London to study archaeology.Kates initial focus was the ancient near east she spent
60、the late 1970s in Syria but in due course,after obtaining her doctorate at Oxford,she came to devote herself instead to the archaeology and wildlife of Wiltshire.Settling in the Vale of Pewsey,surrounded by neolithic earthworks and long barrows,tending her garden,she had found her great mission in l
61、ife:to help preserve the wonders and beauties of her adopted county.For 28 years from 1985,Kate worked as the curator and archivist at Bowood House,the Georgian house in north Wiltshire famous for its gardens landscaped by Capability Brown.Simultaneously,she was becoming a seasoned activist.She camp
62、aigned success-fully against obtrusive developments near Avebury;played a leading role in Rescue:The British Archaeological Trust;and was an award-winning activist for CPRE,the countryside charity.Her greatest cause,though,and one to which she devoted the final decades of her life,was the campaign s
63、till not won against the governments plans for a road tunnel that,if it goes ahead,will desecrate the Stonehenge landscape for ever.In the words of David Jacques,the distinguished archaeologist whose excavations are directly threatened by the development,Kates sense of passion was“fierce but quiet,i
64、nstilling confidence in others,always inspiring people to achieve their best.”All who knew her will recognise the truth of this encomium.She is survived by her siblings,Rowena,Rupert,Sandy and Jim.This obituary was first published inThe Guardian and is republished above with permission.1 Tom Holland
65、 is a historian and the president of the Stonehenge Alliance.11I.Monuments and Sites12 I.Monuments and SitesThe Fate of Stonehenge is still Hanging in the AirJohn Adams with Kate Freeman,The Stonehenge AllianceThe UK Governments plans for road widening,including a 3.3 km tunnel,across the 5.4 km-wid
66、e Stonehenge World Her-itage Site(WHS)landscape were approved for a second time on 14 July 2023 by way of a Development Consent Order(DCO).The road proposals as well as the projects progress and impli-cations have been covered in earlier World Heritage Watch Re-ports(2018,2019,2021,2022 and 2023).Su
67、mmary of previous developmentsIn 2020,the Secretary of State for Transport(SoS)approved plans for road widening,despite the Examiners conclusion that the“effect of the Proposed Development on the OUV of the WHS would lead to substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset”and t
68、hat the SoS“should not make an Order granting development consent for the application”.The SoSs decision to approve the scheme was challenged and ruled unlawful in July 2021.Following the quashing of the schemes DCO the SoS put in place an onerous process to rede-termine the road scheme,asking Natio
69、nal Highways(NH)and others for further information.In 2022 interested parties were invited to respond to NHs submissions.The 17-month long process was in writing,without hearings,unlike the Examination of the draft proposals.There were over 1,500 representations and documents by NH and Interested Pa
70、rties.Technical submissions covered subjects such as alter-natives;hydrology;traffic forecasts;carbon and climate change and environmental impacts,supported by over 20 detailed re-ports on environmental issues and data documents.Among these reports was the joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/IC-CROM
71、Advisory Mission to Stonehenge report published in Au-gust 2022.Its main findings and recommendations echoed ear-lier advisory missions and World Heritage Committee Decisions:profound concern for irreversible impact of the road scheme to the integrity of the WHS and its OUV.The Advisory Mission reco
72、mmended an alternative route around the WHS or a tunnel beneath the entire length of the WHS.Fig.1:Map showing how the tunnel isnt long enough to avoid damage to the World Heritage Site.Map:Courtesy of Amesbury Museum and Heritage TrustI.Monuments and Sites 13Position in 2023Keeping abreast of these
73、 submissions and responding to them was a considerable undertaking.The Alliances concern with the redetermination process was the absence of scrutiny by in-dependent experts,a role previously played by the Examining Authority.Thus,the process gave no opportunity for the Alli-ance,its specialists,or
74、other members of civil society to ques-tion National Highways at issue specific hearings,because none took place.The DCO subsequently granted by the Transport Secretary in July 2023 was essentially for the same road scheme,despite the High Courts ruling in 2021 and its condemnation by the World Heri
75、tage Committee,the Advisory Missions report of 2022,and the Examining Authority that concluded that the adverse impacts would strongly outweigh the benefits.Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site(SSWHS),a private com-pany set up by supporters of the Stonehenge Alliance to bring the first Judicial Revie
76、w,maintained its company status to chal-lenge the second decision;a claim was filed with the High Court at the end of August.The only way SSWHS could afford to bring this second Judicial Review was through crowdfunding to cover its legal fees,and potential costs if the case were lost.A new crowdfund
77、ing page was set up with a stretch target of 80,000 pounds sterling.In the event over 83,000 was raised through donations from 2,589 generous individuals.The legal challenge In addition to the claim that the Transport Secretary had acted unlawfully by not reopening the Examination,the basis of the c
78、laim was:a failure to consider material,including consultation re-sponses.the consideration for rejecting alternatives was unlawful.the decision was not made in accordance with national planning and carbon policies;and,crucially,it was irrational for the SoS to give no weight to the possi-bility of
79、the WHC delisting the WHS.The Transport Secretary in his decision letter states(our emphasis):Several respondents including the Stonehenge Alliance,the Consortium of Stonehenge Experts,and ICOMOS UK referred to the World Heritage Committees power to delist properties and referred to the prospect of
80、Stonehenge losing its status.The Secretary of State has taken this issue into account but given it no weight because if it were to happen it would happen as part of a separate process,the Secretary of State is satisfied that the Proposed Development is in accordance with the NPSNN(National Policy St
81、atement for National Net-works)and in granting consent,this would not lead to the UK being in breach of its World Heritage Convention obligations,and the Applicant will be working with advisory bodies when constructing the Proposed Development.(Para 101)For this second legal challenge there was an a
82、dditional claim-ant:a local resident whose property rights might be subject to compulsory acquisition.Together with SSWHS the claimants jointly pursued the challenge that the failure to re-open the ex-amination constituted a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR)and the
83、 requirements of due process arising at common law and from the statutory scheme.Contracts,UNESCO and the World Heritage CommitteeNational Highways has already let the contracts for this project and has commenced preliminary work adjacent to the World Heritage Site(April 2024),with full-scale constr
84、uction planned in March 2025.Knowing this construction schedule,and of the imminent threat it posed to the WHS we were concerned that unless Stonehenge was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger at the extended forty-fifth session of the WHC in September 2023,the forty-sixth session might
85、 be too late.In early September 2023,representatives of the Alliance met World Heritage Centre Deputy Director,Ms.Jyoti Hosagrahar and the Head of the Europe and North America Unit,Ms.Berta de Sancristobal,in Paris.The purpose of the visit was to express our grave concern about a further delay to in
86、scribing Stone-henge on the List of World Heritage in Danger,and to present a copy of our petition with its then 225,000 signatures(now 238,000)to make UNESCO aware of the strength of feeling against the Governments road building plans.Fig.2:John Adams OBE,Chair of Stonehenge Alliance,presented a sc
87、roll with 225,000 petitioners from 147 countries to the World Heritage Cen-tre.Photo:Stonehenge Alliance14 I.Monuments and SitesThe Alliance made clear that the only thing standing between the WHS and construction starting was the legal challenge.We explained that whilst we welcomed UNESCOs strong l
88、ine on Stonehenge it was obvious to us that the UK Government had no intention of considering less damaging alternatives.We also wrote to Dr Abdulelah Al-Tokhais,Chairperson of the WHC and copied all Committee members to alert them that Stonehenge WHS was in danger.We were extremely grateful to the
89、Chair of World Heritage Watch for arranging for a statement from the Alliance to be read-out at the forty-fifth session which included the following:We urge the Committee to stand firm in the face of such intransigence and to maintain pressure on the State Party to withdraw the scheme.We will have a
90、 new Government within the next 12 months and having a clear and consistent position from UNESCO on the unsuitability of these proposals,should help it come to a better solution and pro-tect the site for future generations.The decision recorded by the WHC at the for-ty-fifth session includes the fol
91、lowing statement:12.Finally requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre,by 1 February 2024,an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above,for exam-ination by the World Heritage Committee at its 46th session,considering that the
92、absence of significant progress in modify-ing the Scheme consistent with the Committees decisions and in accordance with the recommendations of the 2022 Advisory mission,would require a broad mobilization to preserve the Outstanding Universal Value of the property,including the in-scription on the L
93、ist of World Heritage in Danger.This report along with an additional package of information relevant to the road scheme was delivered by the UK govern-ment but with the specific request that is should not be pub-lished by UNESCO.It has proved impossible thus far to obtain copies of these submissions
94、.Importance of inscribing the property on World Heritage in DangerBearing in mind the road scheme has not been modified we hope that the World Heritage Authorities will intensify pressure on the UK Government,and that the World Heritage Centre,in its Report and Draft Decision for the World Heritage
95、Committee meeting in 2024 will maintain the concerns and recommenda-tions for State Party action set out in recent Committee Deci-sions and Advisory Missions recommendations.In our view it is imperative that Stonehenge WHS is added to the List of World Heritage in Danger at the very earliest opportu
96、nity.Addendum 23/04/24The legal challenge was heard in the UKs High Court from 1214 December 2023.Regrettably the application for permission to apply for judicial review was refused by the High Court(Feb-ruary 2024)and was thus unsuccessful.SSWHS,in consultation with its legal team has applied to th
97、e Appeal Court(March 2024)for a review of the High Court de-cision,this required a further fundraising effort.It is not known at the time of writing whether the Appeal Court will grant per-mission for the challenge to proceed,this process is uncertain.Unfortunately,the High Court decision was a majo
98、r setback and brings the destruction of the WHS a step closer,it is critical that the WH Committee acts now before the bulldozers begin to inflict irreversible and permanent harm to the WHS and its OUV.Fig.3:The Stonehenge Alliance Committee met outside the Royal Courts of Justice on 12 December 202
99、3.Photo:Stonehenge AllianceI.Monuments and Sites 15Abusive Planning Application within UNESCO Buffer Zone of the gantija TemplesJoerg Sicot,Flimkien gal Ambjent AjarGozos gantija Temple,datable to the Late Neolothic period,is among Maltas six ancient temple sites that have received distinctive UNESC
100、O World Heritage protection(Dec.Code:39 COM 8B.46)The gantija Temples immediate environs and skyline are under ongoing threat despite the Flimkien gal Ambjent Ajar call for its immediate protection in the WHW Report 2021 ref.World Her-itage Watch 2021 Report(world-heritage-watch.org)pg.14.A controve
101、rsial planning application to build a 22-apartment block just 157 metres away from the site of gantija temples wasapprovedon Thursday 09 November 2023,despite the UNESCO request for a Heritage Impact Assessment,which was simply ignored and not submitted whilst evaluating the plan-ning application.Th
102、e proposal lies within the revised Buffer Zone as established and confirmed by UNESCO in 2015 ref.Megalithic Temples of Malta Maps UNESCO World Heritage Centre The disruption of the temple view with the backdrop of a modern building would be a major impact on the ancient sky-scape,particularly probl
103、ematic as such views have been de-stroyed elsewhere in Malta.Such a building would extend high above the iconic temple skyline.The development threatens not only visitors enjoyment of the site but obstructs vi-tal archaeological research into Late Neolithic Malta.The southern edge of the Xagra plate
104、au is unique for its con-centration of prehistoric sites(such as Santa Verna,Xagra Fig.2:The Buffer Zone of the gan-tija Temple&Xagra Stone Circle as adopted by UNESCO Decision in 2015.Map:Malta Planning AuthorityFig.1:gantija Temples,Gozo.Photo:Daniel Cilia16 I.Monuments and SitesCircle,Ta esu,as w
105、ell as gantija),all linked by their Late Neolithic viewlines;therefore,the preservation of this view is vitally important.The building would also require 1,100 square metres of excavation for basement-level garages,resulting in the removal of archaeologically-rich untouched soils.Appeals launched ag
106、ainst the planning ap-plicationAlongside a costly and strong appeal filed by Flimkien gal Ambjent Ajar against the decision taken by the Planning Authority,three further appeals have been submitted in the courts of Malta against this abusively approved planning permit PA/00570/21.The grievances file
107、d by FAA are:1.The approved development PA 00570/21 is contrary to the Gozo and Comino Local Plan(GCLP),in particular Policy GZ-Edge-1c.2.The application constitutes a violation of the Development and Design Guidance 2015(DC15),in particular policies P6,P42,G2,G3,G23.3.The development,as approved,is
108、 contrary to Thematic Ob-jective 7 Urban Objective 3d of Strategic Plan for Environ-ment and Development SPED15.4.The approved application violates Cap 552 of the Devel-opment Planning Act as it is manifestly clear that there is a grossly incorrect and untrue statement by the applicant regarding the
109、 buffer zone.The established buffer zone is a non-negotiable obligation which the State Party of Malta has with UNESCO.5.The approval of the permit is not in conformity with the Cultural Heritage Act,Chapter 445 of the Laws of Malta,in particular Section II as well as pursuant to article 66 of such
110、legislation.6.The approved application completely ignores Article 191 TFEU and Article 3 of Directive 2011/92 governing the spe-cial mechanism known as the Environment Impact Assess-ment in Malta.7.The call for a Heritage Impact Assessment for the prestig-ious site situated in the vicinity of the ga
111、ntija Temples was not required to be carried out by the Planning Authority of Malta,despite the sensitivity of the prestigious temple site as recognized by UNESCO.8.The approved planning application violates various Aarhus Convention parameters and principles and directives that Malta is a signatory
112、 to,as well as to various European Di-rectives on public access to environmental information.Demands to the State Party of Malta The State Party of Malta must urgently intervene to ensure that no development may obliterate the visual enjoyment and legibility of the UNESCO World Heritage Site gantija
113、 Temples,be that from the perimeter of or as in this case,di-rectly within the buffer zone as established at law.The State Party of Malta must ensure that the enjoyment of its World Heritage Site is not treated as a negotiable good,ripe for the speculative profit drives of business developers.It is
114、unacceptable that the enjoyment of a UNESCO World Heritage Site is severely disturbed by random construction development and thus depriving the general public of its right to free and unencumbered enjoyment of its cultural heritage.The State Party of Malta must ensure that calls by UNE-SCO,ICOMOS an
115、d the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage(Malta)for accurate Heritage Impact Assessments in such sensitive settings are clearly taken into consideration by the Planning Authority in Malta.Non-adherence to such calls are considered an abuse of the Planning Authoritys powers and remit.Latest newsAfte
116、r four appeals were filed against the planning application,suddenly the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage has worked up,filed a request with the Planning Authority to revoke the approved permit and that was done on 07 March 2024.A new attempt will be made,but then a HIA will be called for and th
117、at will make such an invasion far more difficult for any developer.Fig.3:The Planning Proposal,marked dashed blue,is well within the Buffer Zone.Map:Shift NewsFig.4:The Development Proposal is within only 157m from the gantija Tem-ple.Image:Times of MaltaI.Monuments and Sites 17The Acropolis of Athe
118、ns:A Story of Arrogance and FallacyTasos Tanoulas on behalf of Hellenic ICOMOS and SOS AcropolisThe Acropolis of Athens appeared in the shortlist of the nomi-nees for monuments at risk in the years 2020/2021.I will try to update,referring to the activities of the ellenic Ministry of Cul-ture,after t
119、he publication,in April 2023,of the Report submit-ted by the joint WHC/ICOMOS Advisory Mission,which visited Athens for checking on the Acropolis,in April 2022.1 The Mission found itself before a fait accompli,that is:the re-inforced concrete routes,the elevator,the lighting,the railing for the rout
120、es-demarcation.Unfortunately,the Joint Advisory Missions information was completely under the control of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture.This does not justify,but can ex-plain the fact that the Missions Report,after rightly praising the former restoration projects of the monuments,accepted the Mini
121、strys claim that the reinforced concrete routes on the bed-rock are reversible,despite their being conspicuously irreversible(Fig.1,see all Figures at the end of this article).The Missions report,also,ignored the damages done to the rock and antiquities on the Acropolis,a fact already denounced by C
122、ivil Society experts and activists and published in the WHW Reports 2021,2 2022.3 The Missions criticism on the recent implementations was limited to suggestions on elements that could still be improved.However,for the Proposed Covering of the Acropolis Rock(Fig.2)and the Proposed Western Access Pro
123、ject(Fig.19),the Mission recommended to the Greek State Party4 to conform to the UNESCO/ICCROM/ICOMOS/ITCN guidance(2002)and other Operational Guidelines to the World Heritage Conven-tion,as following:1.Prior to any implementation,a Heritage Impact Assessment should be carried out,based on detailed
124、documentation with argumentation,plans and drawings;next,the whole package of information should also be shared with the WHC for review by the Advisory Bodies.2.Since no Management Plan nor Tourism plan have ever been submitted for the Acropolis,such plans would have to be done,and the Acropolis imp
125、lementation projects should be inscribed in them.The Hellenic Ministry of Culture,in a press release,5 deliberately misinterpreted or,rather,distorted the Report,as highly prais-ing the implementation on the Acropolis(that is true only for the older restoration of the monuments).The Ministrys lead-e
126、rship systematically distorted the Mission Reports recom-mendations through the mass media,6 belittling any different voice which presented an objective interpretation of the Mis-sions report.7 s to the Proposed Western Access Project,the Ministry appeared as disposed to comply with the Reports reco
127、mmendations.In fact,the continuous construction on and around the Acropo-lis shows exactly the opposite intention,that is,paying little at-tention to the Mission Reports recommendations.8 The Minis-try justifies construction as simply utilitarian,such as,the drain-age system(Fig.34),minor pathways(F
128、ig.5),the new ticket office(Fig.68)etc.Especially,the drainage system provided a pretext for the implementation of a dense network of massive drainage channels,spreading widely in the archaeological site.What makes things worse(Fig.9-19),is that the usual way of digging is not that of methodical arc
129、haeological excavation,as is the normal procedure,but that of mechanical excavators.More seriously problematic,from the archaeological manage-ment and restoration point of view,are structural interventions on minor ancient monuments,such as:the unnecessary“con-solidation”of the Agrippa pedestal(Fig.
130、1112)or the“restora-tion”of minor monuments such as the installations of cement copies of inscriptions on new cement bases,or the exhibition of a group of precious inscribed blocks in the open air,instead of being exhibited in a museum,as is the normal procedure for inscriptions.The massive use of n
131、ew materials,reinforced con-crete and marble,exceeds a percentage of sixty per cent.All these will be placed at random positions on the rock(Fig.13).Such works should not be implemented before the fulfilment of the Mission Reports recommendations and the approval by the World Heritage Committee.Thes
132、e activities show a disrespect,on behalf of the Ministry of Culture,to the Mission Reports recommendations.This ev-idence of disrespect is corroborated by the following incident.The official superintendent,initiator and director of practically all the structural projects concerning the Acropolis mon
133、uments is the Committee for the Conservation of the Acropolis Monu-ments(S),which is appointed by the Minister of Culture.18 I.Monuments and SitesThe president of ESMA,Manolis Korres,in a lecture delivered on July 4,20239 expressed his disapproval of the Advisory Mis-sion,by rejecting the competence
134、 of the experts for judging the recent works on the Acropolis,and declaring that whatever the Mission Report would recommend for the Acropolis,he and his small group of specialists would still do what they hold as cor-rect,ignoring UNESCOs recommendations.10 Also,Korres declared that the Mission was
135、 the result of a pri-vate plea addressed by Civil Society to the director of WHC.By doing this,Korres belied publicly the Hellenic Ministry of Cul-ture,which insisted on loudly claiming that it was the Ministry that had initially invited the Mission for checking on the works.Moreover,the unprecedent
136、ed rows of crowding tourists(Fig.1418)in spring/summer 2023,reaching 22.00023.000 peo-ple daily,were used as argument for more structure.It is an axiom,that the only solution to overcrowding problems,which endanger both monuments and visitors,is to control the num-ber of visitors accommodated in the
137、 site simultaneously,and this should be resolved by management plans carried out after thorough study by specialized experts.The minister of Culture said the solution would be to make immediate structural inter-ventions to the western access to the Acropolis and inside the Propylaia.The Minister sai
138、d:“We cant demolish the Propylaia,but we can widen it”,as if the Propylaia was a pair of shoes!11 On the other hand,the aforementioned chairman of the YSMA declares that the reinstatement of the Roman staircase in the western access of the Acropolis is not“to facilitate the number of visitors”but to
139、 respond to his belief that“it would add to a better understanding of the site”.12Studies for the western access,are not open for public view,as they seem to have been awarded directly to private companies.However,according to information they all declare their being modelled after Korres illustrate
140、d booklet presented in the 7th International Meeting for the Restoration of the Acropolis Mon-uments.13 The re-arrangement of the western access14(Fig.19)is to cover practically all of the area between the Propylaia,the Nike bastion and the Agrippa pedestal,and the south half of the lower area insid
141、e the Beul Gate.Moreover,it will not rein-state the Roman forms.Especially in the central passage-way a modern step-form will be applied.The steps will be of marble,but in other cases of steel-grating or cement.The supports will be mostly metal posts resting on the rock and on antiquities.The ancien
142、t remains underneath will be practically inaccessible.A stairs-platform-lift will move along sloping rails on the north side of the central passageway,while similar mechanism will run along sloping paths or stairways connecting to the south slope.Another mechanism will connect the area at the foot o
143、f the Agrippa pedestal with the slope west of the Beul Gate.Moreover,the Propylaia is destined to serve as a station for dis-abled-people-vehicles.The disabled people will sit on the re-constructed ancient benches along the walls.The Propylaia will serve as a passageway for tourists entering the sit
144、e and as a monument visited by tourists at the same time.The proposed additional structures for protecting the original steps below the colonnades and before the door-wall(steel slabs),additional pavements for the protection of the Propylaia floors(“breathing”carpets)guarantee only permanent dam-age
145、s and disfiguration of the architecture of the monument.Rather than an archaeological site,the western slope of the Acropolis will look like an exhibition centre of contemporary engineering and of technologies for the accommodation of dis-abled people.All these implementations clash with the1964 Cha
146、rter of Venice and the 2003 ICOMOS Charter on Principles etc.Furthermore,they presuppose major rearrangements in the archaeological sites to the north,west and south of the Acrop-olis,which would involve long term systematic excavations be-fore any implementation.In April 2023,the Hellenic Ministry
147、of Culture contracted a pri-vate company to provide Management Plans for eleven Greek Monuments/Sites,listed as World Heritage,representing Prehis-tory,Antiquity and Byzantium,namely the following:Mycenae,Tiryns,Acropolis,Apollo Epicurius,Olympia,Epidaurus,Delphi,Mystras,Daphni Monastery,Hosios Louk
148、as,Nea Moni.Details of contractsare not publishedyet.But according to the website of the company which was awarded the contract/project,its activities are not relevant to heritage management.15The implementation of visiting time zones introduced in the last fall,16 proved to be only a smoke-screen t
149、o conceal the lack of essential management plans.The proposed measures involve more and more structures filling with new material the space between the classical masterpieces.The Hellenic Ministry of Culture has announced that the studies and the decision-making procedures will be completed in the f
150、all of this year,2024.There is little doubt that by then more construction will have been added in and around the Acropolis.These works will clash with the 1964 Charter of Venice and the 2003 ICOMOS Charter on Principles of Analysis,Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage,a
151、s much as the Project for the Western Access and the temporarily post-poned Project for the Covering of the Acropolis rock.We have seen above that the Hellenic Ministry of Culture,by systematically implementing massive structures on and around the Acropolis,keeps ignoring the Advisory Mission Report
152、s rec-ommendations,proceeding with no management plans,fol-lowing non-transparent procedures.The urgency of the situ-ation on the Acropolis is more alarming than ever before,and we cannot but resort to the co-operative relationship with the international heritage organizations to protect this unique
153、 en-semble of nature and architecture.I.Monuments and Sites 19Therefore,it is mandatory that the following actions be taken:1.First of all,the“Acropolis,Athens”World Heritage Property must urgently be put on the agenda of the World Heritage Committee.2.The World Heritage Committee must request from
154、the Greek State Party To stop all practical activity on the site immediately until the WH Committee has taken a decision about the imple-mented and planned works.Fig.1:Paving the rock to the east of the Propylaia.Above:The metal mesh spread on the white plastic sheet resting directly on the living r
155、ock.Below:To the right at the bottom of the picture,the thickness of the reinforced concrete resting on the living rock.(October 2020)To submit a Management Plan and a Tourism Plan for the Acropolis,Athens,developed with full participation of civil society and transparent procedures,before any other
156、 inter-ventions on the site can be considered.If the WHC and the WH Committee would not respond to the above requests,it would become evident that they estimate the Acropolis as of minor importance among the World Herit-age Monuments.This would have serious negative effects on the Outstanding Univer
157、sal Value of the World Heritage Prop-erty,Acropolis,Athens.Photographic DocumentationAll photos and graphics by Tasos Tanoulas except where noted otherwise.Fig.2:Photomosaic plans of the Acropolis(2020).Above,before the reinforced concrete path-ways were implemented in 2020.Below,the same plan;in wh
158、ite,the proposed covering of the Acropolis rock between the major monuments for the leveling of the site as it was,accord-ing to Korres view,in the 5th c.B.C.Source:Greek Ministry of Culture and SportsNotes1 https:/whc.unesco.org/en/documents/199557(Accessed 27.02.2024)2 https:/world-heritage-watch.
159、org/content/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/WHW-Report-2021.pdf,pp.21-27(Accessed 27.02.2024)3 https:/world-heritage-watch.org/content/wp-content/up-loads/2022/11/2022-Report-WHW-final.pdf,pp.227-231(Accessed 27.02.2024)4 https:/whc.unesco.org/en/documents/199557(Accessed 27.02.2024)5 https:/www.culture.
160、gov.gr/el/Information/SitePages/view.aspx?nID=4560(Accessed 27.02.2024)6 https:/www.kathimerini.gr/society/562377325/unesco-poly-kala-prostatey-meni-i-akropoli/(Accessed 27.02.2024),https:/www.in.gr/2023/04/19/life/culture-live/unesco-akropoli-protypo-syntirisis-klironomias-se-pagkos-mio-epipedo/(Ac
161、cessed 27.02.2024),https:/www.lifo.gr/now/entertain-ment/unesco-i-akropoli-protypo-syntirisis-klironomias-se-pagkosmio-epipedo(Accessed 27.02.2024)7 https:/thepressproject.gr/epistimones-kai-anthropoi-tou-politismou-sti-litevoun-to-neo-tsimentoma-tis-akropolis/(Accessed 27.02.2024),https:/www.cultur
162、e.gov.gr/el/Information/SitePages/view.aspx?nID=4591(Accessed 1.03.2024)8 https:/world-heritage-watch.org/content/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/WHW-Report-2023.pdf,pp.48-49(Accessed 27.02.2024)9 https:/ 10 Korress phrasing:“Even if UNESCO had different views,we are not a pro-tectorate,and so we would d
163、o what we hold as correct.”“our interloc-utors from UNESCO were not better than us!They did not have the same specialization,not our PhDs,nor our books,neither our range of interna-tional science!They are simply UNESCO executives and,in spite of this,they come to judge us!We were humiliated when the
164、y came.I knew that I was better than them,but they had played a role.”11 https:/www.culture.gov.gr/el/Information/SitePages/view.aspx?nID=4615(Accessed 27.02.2024)12 https:/ 1.03.2024)13 https:/www.theacropolismuseum.gr/synedria/7i-diethnis-synanti-si-gia-tin-apokatastasi-mnimeion-akropoleos(accesse
165、d 09.03.2024).Korres,M.,M (Study of the Restoration of the Ascent),Athens 2021.14 https:/digitalculture.gov.gr/2021/02/apokathistate-i-ditiki-prosvasi-tis-akropolis/15 https:/www.tpa.gr/about/(Accessed 27.02.2024)16 https:/www.skai.gr/news/culture/mendoni-apo-1i-tou-septem-vri-zones-episkepsimotitas
166、-stin-akropoli(Accessed 27.02.2024)20 I.Monuments and SitesFig.3:Part of the dense network of massive drainage channels,build in reinforced con-crete,spreading widely in the archaeological site below the Acropolis.(October 2022)Fig.4:Big plastic pipe buried to the south of the Areopagus,part of the
167、drainage network.View of the ditch looking west.The big pipe is being encased in cement that will bear the fill to reach the surroundng ground level.(March 2023)Fig.5:A pathway out of the boundaries of the tourists routes on the Acropolis in the process of being paved with reinforced concrete.Above
168、left,the new elevator.Above right,behind the tree the Erechtheion.View from southwest(January 2023)Fig.6:The foundations of the new ticket office buildings,with vertical rods for the reinforcement of the walls.At the background the rock of the Areopagus.View from the south.(2024)Fig.7:A closer view
169、of the foundations of the new ticket office from the southeast.Above on the right,the rock of the Areop-agus.(2024)Fig.8:View from the northwest end of the Acropolis northern wall,looking northwest.In the image,be-low:the Peripatos,lined with a covered drainage channel on the south,all constructed w
170、ith reinforced concrete;in the middle,among the trees,a winding drainage channel.The drainage network was com-pleted in 2023.Above,in a red ellipse,the foundations of the new tickets office(under construction)and,to the right,the rock of the Areopagus.Further up,the Pnyx and the Observatory.(2024)I.
171、Monuments and Sites 21Fig.910:Two successive stills from a video showing a mechanical excavator at work,at the area destined for the new ticket office.(2023)Fig.11:“Consolidation”of the Agrippa Pedestal.Prestressed rods,framing the pe-riphery of the course on top of the foundation.Two prestressed ro
172、ds inserted in cy-lindrical holes that are straight throughand enter and exit on the external surfaces of the course.(2023)Fig.12:Detail of the“consolidation”illustrated in the previous picture,with the de-tail of the south end of the prestressed rod,visible at the middle of the south side of the co
173、urse.(2023)Fig.13:View of the exhibition of a group of precious inscribed blocks in the open air,instead of being exhibited in a museum,as is the normal procedure for inscriptions.From bottom to top:reinforced concrete base,new marble blocks course,two courses with the original inscribed blocks,crow
174、ning course with new marble blocks.To be started soon.Fig.15-16:Queuing before the ticket control.(2023)Fig.14:Queuing before the ticket booth.(2023)22 I.Monuments and SitesFig.17:Going up the west slope to the Acropolis plateau through the Propylaia.(2023)Fig.18:Leaving the Acropolis plateau throug
175、h the Propylaia.(2023)Fig.19:Plan of the western access to the Acropolis.Red:indicates new material added in the western access between the Propylaia and the Beul Gate,including structural implementations in the Propylaia(sheathing original marble steps and sty-lobates with stainless steel,reconstru
176、ction of the benches along the wall of the Ionic Hall).Purple:new material,most proba-bly reinforced concrete,covering the terrace to the north of the Agrippa pedestal,and new pathways to the north,west and south of the Acropolis.Yellow:areas of the Pro-pylaia,at the same time serving as station for
177、 disabled people equipment,passage-way for going into and out of the Acropo-lis,visited architectural masterpiece.Blue:stairs-platform-lifts moving along rails on the one side of pathways or steps.(2024)I.Monuments and Sites 23The Expansion of Catholic Iconography in the Mosque-Cathedral of CordobaV
178、anesa Menndez MonteroThe Mosque of Cordoba was included on the World Heritage List in 1984 based on criteria i,ii,iii and iv of the Operational Guidelines to the World Heritage Convention.These criteria ex-clusively referred to the Islamic features of the monument.Pre-cisely,ICOMOS recognized the Mo
179、sque to be a“unique and ex-emplary monument”with an Outstanding Universal Value due to its dimensions and the boldness of its interior elevation,its influence on Western Muslim art,its relevance as a testimony to the Caliphate of Cordoba(9291031)and its exemplarity within Islamic religious architect
180、ure.These features were fur-ther acknowledged by the World Heritage Committee,both in 1984 and 1994.On its 18th session,the World Heritage Committee agreed to extend the inscription of the Mosque to its surroundings(1994).From that moment on,the Historic Centre of Cor-doba attained World Heritage st
181、atus,and the Committee for-mally adopted the name“Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba”.Thereby,the Committee recognized the Catholic affiliation of the Mosque after the conquest of Cordoba by King Ferdinand III in 1236.Yet,the Catholic characteristics of the Mosque-Ca-thedral were not determinant nor mentio
182、ned in the original in-scription to the World Heritage List nor on the“Retrospective Statements of OUV”adopted in 2014.It means that the OUV of the Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba still significantly relies on its Islamic nature.Spain submitted two periodic reports on the State of Conser-vation of the H
183、istoric Centre of Cordoba to the World Heritage Committee(2006,2014).In both,Spain assured that the OUV of the Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba has been consistently pre-served(i.e.,the authenticity of its size,design,materials,use and functionality has been maintained).Albeit the Bishopric of Cordoba re
184、tains the management of the Mosque-Cathedral un-der contested property titles,Spain pointed out that the Minis-try of Culture,the regional government of Andalusia,and the local government of Cordoba exercise supervisory powers over the site.The deployment of Catholic imagery in Islamic spacesOver th
185、e last two decades,the Bishopric of Cordoba has been continuously deploying Catholic statues,paintings,and sym-bols within and outside of the Mosque walls,therefore ex-ceeding the space reserved for the Catholic cult and invading the Islamic precinct of the mon-ument.This practice is not only unjust
186、ified on artistic grounds,but it also gives the visitor a mis-leading narrative about the his-tory of the Mosque-Cathedral.Furthermore,the excessive per-formance of Catholic ceremo-nies diminishes the historical value of the monument.Thus,by erasing the Islamic identity of the building and concealin
187、g Fig.1:Plan of the Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba,scale 1:250.The area of the Ca-thedral,with a Latin cross plant,stands in the middle of the ampliations of the orig-inal Mosque.Source:Gabriel Ruiz Cabrero(2009),via Master Plan 2020 24 I.Monuments and SitesFig.3:The Exhibition of Vera Cruz in the midd
188、le of the forest of columns of the Mosque distorts the Andalusian legacy protected by UNESCO(2016)Photo:Plataforma Mezquita-Catedral de CrdobaFig.4:Beyond forty floats were displayed in the forest of columns of the Mosque during the Great Exhibition of Pasos Cofrades(2019).Photo:Plataforma Mezquita-
189、Catedral de CrdobaFig.5:Catholic chapel covering one Almanzor gate on the occasion of Corpus Christi celebrations(2022).Photo:Plataforma Mezquita-Catedral de CrdobaFig.6:Usual intervention in the forest of columns of the Mosque for the conduction of a Catholic event(2023).Photo:Plataforma Mezquita-C
190、atedral de CrdobaThe unjustified occupation of the Islamic space with Catholic iconography jeopardizes the authenticity of the Mosque-Cathe-dral of Cordoba and undermines its OUV and cultural diversity.Local associations such as Plataforma Mezquita-Catedral de Crdoba raised these concerns and issued
191、 formal complaints to the relevant public authorities.Their claims,however,have been rejected so far due to administrative silence.The pitfalls of the 2020 Master Plan for the Mosque-Cathedral of CordobaIn 2020,the Cathedral Chapter proposed a Master Plan to reg-ulate the management of the Mosque-Ca
192、thedral.Yet,instead of echoing the above-mentioned concerns,the Master Plan ne-glected the most basic principles of the World Heritage Con-its Islamic values,the Bishopric of Cordoba is undermining the OUV of the Mosque-Cathedral.Fig.2:The Qibla wall of the Great Mosque of Crdoba is considered the m
193、ost rele-vant area of the monument.On the left side of the wall is the Mihrab of Al-Hakam II.Out-of-context Catholic imagery covers the entire wall.In the foreground,a lectern from the transept choir obstructs the view of the Qibla.Photo:Plataforma Mezquita-Catedral de CrdobaI.Monuments and Sites 25
194、vention.On the one hand,there is hardly any mention of the Andalusian character of the monument.The Master Plan de-picts the Mosque-Cathedral just as a Catholic church,thereby denying its artistic,historical and cultural values as have been recognized by UNESCO.Consequently,the document pays little
195、attention to the cultural and tourist use of the Mosque-Cathe-dral,which serves up to two million visitors per year.By con-trast,it gives prevalence to its liturgical use,which takes place around 10%of the opening time.In line with this view,the Master Plan links the authenticity of the Mosque-Cathe
196、dral to its religious-Catholic function and not to the original values that granted its inclusion in the World Heritage List.This strat-egy thus allows the deployment of Catholic elements in spaces of Islamic significance without amounting to a breach of the World Heritage Convention.On the other ha
197、nd,the Master Plan disregards paragraph 119 of the Operational Guidelines to the World Heritage Conven-tion.By not providing any means to channel the participation of local communities,NGOs or other interested partners,the Mas-ter Plan leaves the monopoly of the decision-making in man-agement matter
198、s in the hands of the Cathedral Chapter.De-spite these pitfalls,in December 2023,the regional government of Andalusia gave the green light to the Master Plan.However,in light of the recent developments,the Cathedral Chapter can-not guarantee the protection of the OUV of the Mosque-Cathe-dral.Eventua
199、lly,it is Spain,as a State Party to the World Herit-age Convention,who will have to respond for current damages to the intangible elements of the Mosque-Cathedral.A preliminary call to the World Heritage CommitteeThe World Heritage Committee has not been informed about the 2020 Master Plan thus far.
200、Hence,there has been no coor-dination between UNESCO and the Spanish public authorities in this field.There is a widespread fear that the monitoring of the state of conservation of the Historic Centre of Cordoba dilutes the protection of the Mosque-Cathedral as proposed in 1984.It is,therefore,neces
201、sary to draw the attention of the World Her-itage Committee to the specific issues of OUV protection of the Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba.Acting in its capacity,the World Heritage Committee can call upon Spain to fulfil its obligations under the World Heritage Convention.To this end,the first step is
202、to urge Spain to request the adoption of a separate Manage-ment Plan for the Mosque-Cathedral or the modification of the existing Master Plan aligning with the Operational Guidelines of the World Heritage Convention.Combining religious and cultural uses of World Heritage sites is not only feasible,b
203、ut also highly desirable.In this regard,Spain should not prohibit Catholic ceremonies in the Mosque-Cathe-dral of Cordoba,but it must compel the Bishopric to respect,promote and protect its Islamic features.Expressing it differ-ently,Spain must strike a balance between the international status of th
204、e Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba as a World Her-itage site,allowing every human to enjoy it,and the right of the local population to express and practice their freedom of religion.The case of the Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba opens a new debate on the misuse of World Heritage site spaces as a mat-ter of
205、authenticity beyond material modification or ill-restora-tion.Authenticity values are also present in intangible elements of the monuments interior and exterior spaces.Preserving au-thenticity becomes even more urgent in the case of World Her-itage sites with two or more excluding precincts.In the f
206、ace of the current rise of religious intolerance in most contemporary societies,the World Heritage Committee must stand up as the guardian of collective memory,historical truth and cultural di-versity.The Mosque-Cathedral of Cordoba and the protection of its most significant values constitute a good
207、 starting point.ReferencesICOMOS.Advisory Body Evaluation,World Heritage List no.331,May 1984:https:/whc.unesco.org/en/documents/153175ICOMOS.Advisory Body Evaluation,World Heritage List no.331 bis,May 1994:https:/whc.unesco.org/en/documents/153176UNESCO.World Heritage Committee,8th Session,Inscript
208、ion:The Mosque of Cordoba(Spain),Decision 8 COM IX.A,(Buenos Aires,Argentina,29 Octo-ber 2 November 1984):https:/whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom84.htmUNESCO.World Heritage Committee,18th Session,Extension and Change of Name:The Historic Centre of Cordoba(extension of the Mosque of Cor-doba)(Spain),Dec
209、ision 18 COM XI(Phuket,Thailand,12 17 December 1994):https:/whc.unesco.org/archive/repcom94.htmUNESCO.World Heritage Committee,38th Session,Adoption of Retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value,Decision 38 COM 8E(Doha,Qa-tar,15-25 June 2014):https:/whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6149/UNES
210、CO.World Heritage Centre,State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties in Europe,Spain.Historic Centre of Cordoba,Section II(Cycle I,2006):https:/whc.unesco.org/en/documents/163259UNESCO.World Heritage Centre,State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties in Europe,Spain.Historic Centre of
211、Cordoba,Section II(Cycle II,2014):https:/whc.unesco.org/en/documents/164375Cabildo Catedral de Crdoba,Plan Director Mezquita-Catedral de Crdoba,2020:https:/mezquita-catedraldecordoba.es/site/assets/files/29170/plan_di-rector_mezquita-catedral_de_co_rdoba_2020_propuesta.pdfUNESCO/ICRROM/ICOMOS/UICN,M
212、anaging Cultural World Heritage,2014:https:/whc.unesco.org/en/managing-cultural-world-heritage/Plataforma Mezquita-Catedral de Crdoba:https:/plataformamezquitacor-doba.es 26 I.Monuments and SitesVisitor Management Issues of the Hagia Sophia Indicate That it Should Have Remained a Museum Anonymous au
213、thor1The 2023 World Heritage Monitoring report for Hagia Sophia is primarily concerned with assessing the effects of the visi-tor management plan.This plan,recently introduced by Turk-ish authorities,aims to safeguard Hagia Sophia from potential risks and damages resulting from visitor congestion in
214、 accord-ance with UNESCOs guidelines.However,the visitor manage-ment plan under review has not been shared with the pub-lic as an available document,and there has been no partici-pation process involving expert organisations and stakeholders during the preparation of the plan.Additionally,discussion
215、s with members of the Advisory Board of the Istanbul Historic Areas Management Directorate did not occur while the plan was in draft form.This situation contradicts participatory plan-ning and stakeholder consultation emphasised in 111 of the Operational Guidelines for implementing the World Heritag
216、e Convention.Access to documents regarding the visitor management plan from public sources is unavailable as a document.However,in-formation regarding current regulations that classify access to the monument for worship,tourism,and cultural purposes can be obtained from public announcements such as
217、press con-ferences organised with officials participation and social me-dia statements.Under these circumstances,it is challenging to confirm the existence of a comprehensive visitor management plan.According to public statements,the visitor management plan is a regulation that allows Turkish citize
218、ns to enter the ground floor of Hagia Sophia,which functions as a place of worship,free of charge.The gallery floor is open to visitors for a fee of 25 Euros.An audio guide system is available for the gallery floor to maintain a serene worship environment;guided tours are not allowed.3 Again,accordi
219、ng to the visitor man-agement plan,Turkish citizens have free access to the ground floor but,like all other visitors,require a ticket costing 25 Eu-ros to access the gallery floor.Its important to note that since Hagia Sophia is no longer classified as a museum,Turkish citi-zens cannot benefit from
220、national regulations concerning mu-seum entrances or use tools such as museum cards to access the gallery floor.The regulation conveyed in public statements was last observed on-site by the reports author on April 23rd,2024.Signage for the prayer area and visitors area directions around Hagia So-Hag
221、ia Sophia,managed as a museum since 1934,was recon-verted to a mosque status by a decree of the Turkish Presidency in 2020.Due to the monuments reutilization as a mosque and the 24/7 open access policy implemented,the visitor density and related damages increased.Upon the recommendation of the UNESC
222、O WHC,the State Party prepared a visitor manage-ment plan to address this issue2.In October 2021,Minister of Culture and Tourism of the Turkish Republic,Mehmet Nuri Ersoy announced this visitor management plan to the public,and its implementation commenced on January 15,2024.Fig.1:The Hagia Sophia a
223、nd Visitor Direction Signs.Photo by the authorI.Monuments and Sites 27phia are visible(Fig.1).During the reporters visit,the door at-tendants explained that access to the ground floor of Hagia Sophia was free for all Muslims during prayer times.The rest of the time,Turkish citizens and individuals o
224、f different nationali-ties who declare they are Muslims and have purchased tickets to visit the gallery floor are also allowed to enter the ground floor if requested.During verbal interviews with the on-site personnel,it was con-veyed that Hagia Sophias instantaneous visitor capacity is de-termined
225、to be 7.000 individuals.4 Once the number of visitors on the ground floor reaches this threshold,admittance is tem-porarily suspended.It was observed that the staff suspended entries based on this limit during visitation.When asked how many people were inside around 3:00 3:30 PM on April 23rd,it was
226、 reported that approximately 10.000 people were inside,which led to the temporary suspension of entry.Therefore,the visitor management plan needs to significantly improve the control of visitor density on the ground floor(Fig.2).The visitor management plan lacks a specific tool to enhance the visito
227、r experience on the ground floor by showcasing all aspects and significance of the building.As a result,it fails to help visitors gain a better understanding of the buildings im-portance and value.The only implementation to be considered within this scope is the information centre on the ground floo
228、r in front of the Sultan Mahmut II Library.It consists of a stand and brochures that are quite mismatched with the build-ings design(Fig.3).At this point,a booklet prepared by the Presidency of Religious Affairs is distributed,containing infor-mation about architectural elements from different perio
229、ds of the building and Islam religion in Turkish and various other languages.The ground floor has been equipped with accordion barriers to prevent damage similar to what occurred in the Imperial Gate in previous years.5 While these barriers are movable and do not directly intervene with the structur
230、e,they do not match the buildings aesthetic value and make perceiving the space as a whole challenging(Fig.45).In numerous visits conducted at different times,it has been observed that the apse mosaics are also covered with curtains outside of prayer times(Fig.6).Fig.2:A crowded main hall(ground flo
231、or/worship prayer area)of the Hagia So-phia.Photo by the authorFig.3:Information Center,Ground Floor.Photo by the authorFig.4:Ground Floor shoe racks and accordion barriers.Photo by the authorFig.5:Shoe racks in the inner narthex.Photo by the author28 I.Monuments and SitesRegarding the visitor exper
232、ience on the gallery floor,the paid entry application has effectively ensured that the visitor density on the gallery floor is not as high as on the ground floor.How-ever,this section was closed to visitors when the building was converted into a mosque in 2020.Following restoration works and the ann
233、ouncement of the visitor management plan,it reo-pened to visitors for the first time on January 15,2024.The distinction between the conditions for visiting the ground floor and the gallery floor also brings about faith-based and nationality-based discrimination in accessing Hagia Sophia as a World H
234、eritage site.In this regard,the situation contradicts the universal understanding and common heritage approach of the World Heritage Convention.Regulations concerning the ground floor allocated for worship limits the access for non-Turkish citizens to access this area.This regulation is dis-criminat
235、ive and cannot adequately control the significant vis-itor traffic that poses a risk to the structure.Additionally,the relatively high entrance fee for the gallery floor,being exempt from the national regulations on museum entry fees,makes it difficult for citizens of the Republic of Turkey to visit
236、 the gallery floor,hindering the full appreciation of the structures layers and values.Some of the architectural interventions made to regulate visi-tors access to the gallery floor have also been criticised by the public.One of these is the entrance gate,which is stated to have been constructed to
237、ensure the safety of ascending visi-tors(Fig.78).According to the General Directorate of Founda-tions statement,the entrance gate to the gallery floor was built to ensure security in passages beneath the scaffolding of the ongoing restoration of the Beyazd II Minaret by the decision of the relevant
238、conservation committee.This temporary structure is notable for its industrial shutter system.Despite being con-sidered temporary,this structure does not meet the standards expected from temporary structures that could be built under the requirements of historical environments like Hagia Sophia.Anoth
239、er practice that has partially received criticism from the public is the wooden platform over the ramp and stairs leading to the gallery floor.However,officials and scientific committee members have clarified that this practice conserves the original stone floor in the buildings visitor routes and e
240、nsures the safe walking of visitor groups.6In previous years mission reports,setting an archaeologi-cal garden northwest of Hagia Sophia is recommended.The landscape design in this area is partially completed.Still,the dis-plays related to archaeological artefacts lack information,and the spaces des
241、ign and organisation do not effectively commu-nicate information about the artefacts(Fig.9).7Fig.6:Covered apse mosaics.Photo by the authorFig.7:Temporary Entrance of the Visitor Area and directory signage to the Hagia So-phia History and Experience Museum.Photo by the authorFig.8:Temporary Entrance
242、 Structure of the Visitor Area.Source:Social MediaI.Monuments and Sites 29Evaluation on the Scale of“Sultanahmet Urban Archaeological Component Area and Hagia SophiaThe valuable messages of multiculturalism that Hagia Sophia has derived from Istanbuls multi-layered history and brought to the present
243、 day have long been overshadowed by ideological burdens and expectations influenced by religious and national-istic viewpoints centred on transforming the monument into a church or mosque.The building lost its museum status in 2020 through a decision influenced by Turkeys mainstream politics,high ju
244、diciary,and the Presidency.Aside from the debates con-cerning the meaning and value of the structure,the established administrative system and institutional structure that had man-aged it as a museum since 1934 also changed,and the struc-ture serves as worship.Despite the need for a publicly availab
245、le document clearly out-lining Hagia Sophias organisational management structure and distribution of responsibilities,we can piece together various information to gain a glimpse into its management system.With Hagia Sophias conversion into a mosque in 2020,the building was transferred from the Minis
246、try of Culture and Tour-ism to the Presidency of Religious Affairs.On July 16,2020,Responsible public institutions announced that a protocol had been signed between the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the Presidency of Religious Affairs for the protection,develop-ment,promotion,and management ac
247、tivities of Hagia Sophia.An Administrative Board was established for coordination as part of this protocol8.The Scientific Committee,which has been involved in the con-servation and restoration works of Hagia Sophia since 1993,continues its duties under the protocol.9 These boards are man-agement se
248、tups that could positively impact decision-making processes and encourage inter-institutional coordination.How-ever,besides these boards with administrative coordination and scientific guidance functions,an integrated management model needs to be specific to Hagia Sophias scale.When examined from a
249、management perspective,the ground floor designated for worship is under the responsibility of the Presidency of Religious Affairs,while the gallery floor open to visitors is under the responsibility of the General Directorate of Foundations.The situations importance is underscored when we consider P
250、rotection and Management,one of the three pillars of the UNESCO World Heritage system.These issues fur-ther reinforce the argument that Hagia Sophia should have re-mained a monument museum.When we evaluate the status of Hagia Sophia,we must also assess the conservation status of the Sultanahmet Urba
251、n Ar-chaeological Component Area of the World Heritage Site.This areaencompasses several locations that demand careful site management and conservation efforts,necessitating the in-volvement of diverse disciplines and stakeholders(Fig.1011).A current example in this context,the Hagia Sophia Histor y
252、 and Experience Museum needs to be analysed in terms of mu-seology,interpretation,and reuse of this historic building10.An-other example that explains the need to manage the Sultanah-met Urban Archaeological Component Area of the World Her-itage Site can be mentioned:the largest section of the Great
253、 Palace excavated so far remains neglected.Other examples are St.Euphemia Church(Antiochus Palace)and the Lausos Pal-ace.A dedicated project has been carried out to conserve the churchs frescoes,and the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality removed the illegal stage built on the remains of the Lausos P
254、alace in 2022.On the other hand,the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality has shared with the public a highly debated urban design project for the Hippodrome.However,an integrated ap-proach is missing for these areas,and their relationship with each other,and these interventions remain fragmented.There
255、-Fig.9:Archaeological pieces in the Hagia Sophia garden,sign text:“Maintenance of this green area is carried out by Fatih Municipality.”Photo by the authorFig.10:Aerial photograph overlaid with Mller-Wieners historical topography map of Istanbul,Sultanahmet area.Source:Mller-Wiener,W.2016,Historical
256、 Topography of Istanbul.30 I.Monuments and Sitesfore,mission reports recommend that a Master Plan covering the entire Hagia Sophia region becomes crucial.11Addressing the Sultanahmet Urban Archaeological Component Area of the World Heritage Site with a spatial and strategic master plan will benefit
257、this multi-layered areas integrated con-servation and presentation with a shared understanding among various stakeholders.Furthermore,considering that the current Historical Peninsula Area Management Plan is dated 2018 and the dynamic nature of the area,it is strongly emphasised that it urgently nee
258、ds up-dating.In this regard,local and central government authori-ties should be invited to fulfil their responsibilities regarding the World Heritage Site.Fig.11:Sultanahmet Urban Archaeological Com-ponent Area of World Heritage Site.Source:İstanbul Historic Peninsula Management Plan 2018.Notes1 The
259、 identity of the author is known to World Heritage Watch.2 UNESCO World Heritage Centre-State of Conservation(SOC 2023)Historic Areas of Istanbul(Trkiye)Document WHC/23/45.COM/7B.Add3 https:/ Although there is no opportunity to confirm this visitor capacity restric-tion from official sources,it is u
260、nclear whether this number is based on a density calculation relative to the total area of the prayer area or on a capacity calculation considering the structural conservation conditions and vulnerabilities.5 Methodiou,H.(2023).“The Justinian Hagia Sophia May Not Make it to 2050”,World Heritage Watc
261、h Report 2023,p.52.6 Ayasofyadaki tahribat 30 yllk Bilim Kurulu yesi deerlendirdi:Mze olarak kalmalyd(.tr)Evaluation of the destruction in Hagia Sophia(by a member of the Scientific Board for 30 years)It should have re-mained as a museum(.tr)7 Bouchenaki,M.(2021).REPORT ON THE 2nd UNESCO Advisory mi
262、ssion to the World Heritage property Historic Areas of Istanbul(Turkey),pp.14-16.8 Administrative Board Ayasofya-i Kebir Camii(ayasofyaikebircamii.gov.tr)9 Science Ayasofya-i Kebir Camii(ayasofyaikebircamii.gov.tr)10 Hagia Sophia visitors are directed to the Hagia Sophia History and Experi-ence Muse
263、um,located in Sultanahmet Square.The Defter-i Hakani(Land Registry Office)building was transformed into the Museum by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in 2023.11 Bouchenaki,M.(2021).REPORT ON THE 2nd UNESCO Advisory mission to the World Heritage property Historic Areas of Istanbul(Turkey),pp.14.I
264、.Monuments and Sites 31The Monastery of Chora in Istanbul and the Role of UNESCO Helen MethodiouIn a statement1 on the Chora Monastery,part of the“Historic Areas of Istanbul”World Heritage,the Hellenic Committee of ICOMOS states:“According to a recent decision of the Turkish State,the katho-likon ch
265、urch2 of the Chora monastery in Istanbul is being at-tributed to Islamic worship,without provisions to ensure the preservation of the material body of the monument and all the structural and artistic elements for the preservation of which it was recognised by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site.()“The d
266、omestic policy objectives of a foreign state do not di-rectly concern ICOMOS.But when they do have an impact on the characteristics of a monument on the basis of which the in-ternational community has decided to inscribe it on the World Heritage List,then ICOMOS,as the statutory technical adviser to
267、 UNESCO on matters relating to monuments and sites,has a duty to express its opinion,as does any organisation that is rel-evant to the matter and respects its principles.()“The relatively small scale of the monument and the nature of the decoration require a careful management of the architec-tural
268、shell,i.e.control of the number of visitors,control of the atmospheric conditions and the preservation of the monument.Furthermore,since a key feature of the monument is the mo-saics with Christian representations,the function of the mon-ument as a place of Islamic worship would require their con-ce
269、alment and would remove a most important element of its artistic value.Fig.1:A worshipper holds a Turkish national flag during a prayer in the Chora mu-seum,indicating that its re-dedication as a mosque was underpinned by strong nationalistic sentiments.The room had been altered for the service by p
270、lacing a mihrab(prayer niche)into the far corner of the apse,erecting a wooden minbar(pulpit),and covering the famous mosaics with a textile cover(to the right of the minbar).Photo:mit Bektash/ReutersFig.2:Schematic floor plan of the katholikon church of the Chora Monastery.While the Nave the main p
271、rayer hall has only three mosaics,the outer and inner narthex exhibit altogether 52 mosaics,covering all of their walls.Their concealment would completely deprive these rooms of their artistic and aesthetic value.Graphic:Elias SarantopoulosFig.3:A visitor lifts the cover of a mosaic in the nave of t
272、he church of the Chora.The covering of the mosaics affects the integrity of the monument and the state of con-servation of the mosaics.Photo:Erdem Shahin/EFA-ERE32 I.Monuments and SitesThe alteration of the cultural character and function of the katholikon church of the Chora monastery is bound to b
273、ring about a number of changes that will be imposed as necessary for its adaptation to the new conditions.This has already been demonstrated in the case of Hagia Sophia where,four years after the removal of its museum status and the imposition of its operation as a place of Islamic worship,the chara
274、cter of the monument has changed radically,not only from the point of view of aesthetic/artistic perception,but also from the appear-ance of serious symptoms of stress on the building fabric.“The Hellenic ICOMOS expresses its strong opposition to the removal of the character of the museum from the k
275、atholikon church of the Chora Monastery and the imposition of its func-tion as a place of Islamic worship.Its designation as a World Heritage Site imposes a moral duty on all ICOMOS National Committees and UNESCO to take a stand on this serious issue,and to demand that the Turkish state respects the
276、 terms of the World Heritage Convention,to which it is a signatory,and re-voke its decision.”The attribution of the Chora Monastery in Constantinople to Islamic worship was expected,given that the relevant decision of the Turkish State Council was published in 2019,while work on the conversion of th
277、e monument into a Muslim mosque had been underway since 2020.According to the World Heritage Convention,the World Her-itage Committee,consisting of 21 elected Member States,is responsible for its implementation.The annual session of the Committee,in which our country presently participates as a memb
278、er,in the year 2021 and 2023 was limited to making rec-ommendations to Turkey on the potential impact of the change of use on the outstanding universal value of Hagia Sophia and the work carried out in the monastery of the country.This po-sition of the Committee can be interpreted as adoption of the
279、 new use of the monuments and as the completion of a bu-reaucratic procedure without prior discussion and exchange of views.One of the strategic objectives of the Convention is the ac-tive participation of civil society in the processes of protecting World Monuments.The international scientific comm
280、unity was mobilized and expressed views and proposals that were not taken into account either by the Committee or by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre:The monuments declared World Heritage as museums reflect many historical/cultural phases over the centuries.The change of use marks the priority of on
281、e phase over the others which is contrary to the spirit of the Convention as to the universality of cultural heritage.International normative texts for the protection of cultural her-itage state that the restoration of a monument must document and take into account all aspects of cultural values,wit
282、hout undue emphasis on any value to the detriment of others.Dec-orative elements are also considered to be integral elements of a monument,while its use,function and intangible values doc-ument its integrity and authenticity.Professor Austerhat,the leading authority on the subject,expressed the view
283、 that The Chora Monastery is a three-dimensional work of art and to un-derstand its importance one must see it as a whole,as a work where architecture coexists with mosaics and frescoes.Fig.4:The parekklision3 of the Chora church holds frescoes of such paramount im-portance for the development of By
284、zantine art that it may be dubbed“the Sistine Chapel of Orthodoxy”.Whether it will be opened for Muslim prayers is yet un-clear.Photo source:The uncontrolled access to Hagia Sophia and the lack of secu-rity personnel as well as the non-implementation of UNESCOs recommendations for protective measure
285、s on the part of Tur-key have already caused irreversible damage to the monument,resulting in the deterioration of its exceptional universal value.It is proposed that an ad hoc International Interdisciplinary Committee be set up by UNESCO with the task of coordinat-ing the various studies and projec
286、ts on the monuments.It is considered necessary to inscribe the historic zones of Is-tanbul on the List of World Heritage in Danger.The zones in-clude other remarkable monuments of various periods that are threatened by abandonment or large-scale infrastructure projects.The major issue is to clarify
287、whether the change of use of the monuments actually violates the letter and spirit of the World Heritage Convention.If the conversion is indeed in contraven-I.Monuments and Sites 33tion to the World Heritage Convention,the next question is who may invoke Turkeys international legal responsibility.As
288、 stated in an article by Lucas Lixinski and Vassilis P.Tzevelekos4:The International Law Commissions(ILC)Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts,which largely codify customary law,distinguish be-tween injured and non-injured states,enabling non-injured states to in
289、voke a wrongdoers responsibility if the obli-gation breached is owed to all other states(erga omnes obligations).The right of non-injured states to invoke the responsibility of a state violating obligations erga omnes(partes)is well established in the case law of the Interna-tional Court of Justice,
290、which recently confirmed this right in its January 2020 provisional measures order inThe Gam-bia v.Myanmargenocide case.“The World Heritage Conventions aim is to protect hu-manitys common heritage.Therefore,all states parties have a legitimate interest in having their common herit-age protected and
291、used in conformity with its universal value.Therefore,even as non-injured states,all parties to the World Heritage Convention could claim from Turkey the cessation of the use of Hagia Sophia as a mosque,and as-surances and guarantees that its non-denominational na-ture will be preserved in the futur
292、e.”The mutilation of the two monuments undermines the cred-ibility of the World Heritage Convention.It is therefore impera-tive that the Committee be rid of its political character which is inconsistent with its statutory role,and that the UNESCO World Heritage Centre review policies for the protect
293、ion of World Monuments which have proved ineffective.Notes1 The katholikon church of the monastery of Chora and the violation of inter-national conventions.Prot.No.1610 of 15 May,20242 According to Wikipedia,a katholikon church can be the cathedral of a di-ocese,or a large church in a city at which
294、all the faithful of the city gather to celebrate certain important feasts,or as in this case the major church building of a monastery.https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katholikon 3 A parekklision(lit.side-church)is a side chapel often found in early byzan-tine churches which was used for ceremonial and f
295、unerary purposes.https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecclesion 4 Agia Sophia,Secularism and International Cultural Law,in:American Society of international Law,vol.24,issue 25 September 22,202034 I.Monuments and SitesTauric Chersonesos is being Destroyed by the Occupying Russian AuthoritiesEvelina Kravc
296、henkoSince 2014,some of the sites of cultural heritage of Ukraine has been under Russian occupation.The occupier caused the great-est damage to the only WHS site in Crimea-the ancient city of the Tauric Chersonesos and its chora.The site has been under the protection of UNESCO1 since 2013,located in
297、 the city of Sevastopol in Crimea(Fig.12).1 http:/whc.unesco.org/en/list/1411Tauric Chersonesos was one of the latest ancient Greek colo-nies,founded in the 5th(according to one version at the end of the 6th)centuries BC on the northern coast of Pontus,and the only Dorian colony.The foundation of Ch
298、ersonesos around the middle of the 1st millennium BC connected with a number of different factors,the main one being the active trade contacts of the Greeks with the barbarian world of the north of Pontus(Fig.3).The building remains of the city and fortification of the Chersonesos-Kherson and its ch
299、ora(agricultural area)have a unique preservation both for the Northern Black Sea region and for ancient sites in general.The polis and the chora were designed and built according to a single clearly observed plan,which corresponds to the ur-ban planning concept of Hippodamus of Miletus.In addition,C
300、hersonesos-Kherson throughout its existence was associated with the pervasion of transcultural cult customs and religions.It is connected with evidence of the existence of the cult of the Parthenos or the Virgin,the spread of early Christian ideology even before its official recognition in Rome,the
301、pervasion of Orthodox Christianity(Byzantine observance)after the accept-ance and baptism of Kyivan Prince Volodymyr Sviatoslavovych in the process of the acceptance of Rus and its dynasties into the circle of Byzantine area states.One of the most important finds in Chersonesos for the world cultura
302、l heritage was the Civic Oath of the Chersonesites(IO-Fig.1:The Heraclean Peninsula in the South-Western Crimea with the city of the Tauric Chersonesos and its ChoraMap:Martin Lenk,with Chora by Stephen Tompson(Annual Report,Chersonesos and Metaponto,2000,p.33)Fig.2:Plan of the Chersonesos museum fr
303、om the Annual Report Chersonesos and Metaponto,2000,p.10.Plan:Carl Holiday and Alma MaldonadoFig.3:The Black Sea region with forest-steppe barbarian hillforts,ancient Greek colonies(2)and Late Scythians hillforts(3)Map:Evelina KravchenkoI.Monuments and Sites 35SPE,I2,400-402).This document was creat
304、ed in the 3rd century BC during very hard events.The beginning of the 3rd century BC was marked for Chersonesos by appreciable deprivation of territories in the north and east.Therefore,the appearance of this document could be a rethinking of the status of a citizen by the Chersoneites,increased res
305、ponsibility for their state.On the other hand,this emphasizes the importance of democratic institutions in Chersonesos,makes it not only unique in terms of the architectural decision of the city,but also a wonderful ex-ample of ancient democracy,unique in the quality of the public organization of th
306、e polis.In fact,all this became the basis for granting Tauric Chersonesos the status of a World Heritage Site(Fig.4).In the first few years after the occupation,violations by the oc-cupying power of the use of the WHS related to measures of management the construction of large observation platforms
307、Further measures of the so-called beautification already af-fected the Volodymyrs Cathedral,which was handed over to the Russian Orthodox Church by the occupation authorities.It was a complex of works on the arrangement of communica-tions and the territory around St.Volodymyrs Cathedral,which led to
308、 the loss of a part of the exhibition area(Fig.6),a violation of integral archaeological complexes by digging trenches.In the future,this will lead to the de-struction of preserved drawings on the walls of a small cistern cov-ered with a special soil mixture(fig.9),which is located near the St.Vo-lo
309、dymyr Cathedral.This“beautification”con-tinues until now,and in the future it is pre-dicted that it will be im-plemented uncontrolled on the entire territory of the ancient city of Chersonesos.Directly on the remains of the only preserved Roman citadel in the Northern Black Sea re-gion,an open-air t
310、hea-tre was set up to hold an opera and ballet festival(Fig.7).Constructions of the stage,decorations,light and sound equipment,audience rows weighing dozens of tons lay on the stone remains of the oldest part of Chersone-sos,covering all the pre-Christian building rests of the city.The most barbari
311、c crime that could be invented at an archaeo-logical site is its demolition and construction,which happened that distorted the authentic appearance of the site,the laying of pedestrian paths with wooden flooring,which were in no way compatible with the traditions of road covering in Cher-sonesos,whe
312、re stone or sea pebbles have always been used,the construction of a new entrance group near the tower of Zenonos,etc.(Fig.5).Fig.5:The new entrance group near the tower of Zenonos.Photo:Google Maps,2021Fig.4:General Plan of the City of the Tauric Chersonesos(yellow)and buffer zone(pink)by Tymur Bobr
313、ovskyi and Larissa Sedikova(-,2014).Map:UNESCO/Martin Lenk36 I.Monuments and Sitesas a result of the construction of the New Chersonese Archaeologi-cal Park(Fig.8).Construction took place on the site of the ancient suburb of Chersonesos which was discovered and explored in 20102013,in the southern p
314、art of the site.As a result,more than 80,000 square meters of WHS were de-stroyed.The construction works destroyed the cultural layer,which in some places reached more than 10 meters,the remains of an an-cient temple,the city necropolis with unique burial and memorial structures,layers of ash and li
315、t-ter,the remains of suburban com-plexes of the WHS together with ceramic workshops(ceramicos).The area of these complexes is part of the Tauric Chersonesos site.It was a territory of a Russian military base before 2014,and just part of this territory is the area of the National Preserve of the Taur
316、ic Chersonesos excavated in 2010-2013.In the map of the UNESCO WHS this territory is in the buffer zone(see Fig.4).All these works were sanctioned by Russian archaeologists who supposedly conducted research there in an expedition of the Institute of the History of Material Culture of the Russian Aca
317、demy of Sciences.The expedition was headed by Sergey Solovyov.Specialists of the State Hermitage,the Institute of Ar-chaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences,Russian univer-sities,and the National Preserve of the Tauric Chersonesos are involved in this.In addition to the fact that the general ap
318、pear-ance of the site was disturbed,which led to the distortion of the ancient landscape,tens of thousands of finds excavated by soil works from destroyed suburban complexes were removed from Crimea,other tens of thousands ended up in the mod-ern landfills of Sevastopol,where they were taken by dump
319、 trucks from the construction zone.Some of them were picked up from these dumps by local people both for personal storage and for sale on the black market.Thus,soon we will be able to see things from Chersonesos on online auctions.The executor of these works and the general contractor is the Ministr
320、y of Defence of the Russian Federation,the management and financing of the works is carried out by the My History fund of the Patriarchal Council for Culture of the Russian Or-Fig.8:Map of Sevastopol(2024)with Na-tional Preserve of the Tauric Chersonesos(be-tween the Pisochna and Karantynna bays)and
321、 the area of the so-colled Archaeological Park of the New Chersonesos in the buffer zone.Map:Google/Martin LenkFig.6:The City of Tauric Chersonesos with the area of the St.Volodymyr cathedral(left center,behind the wall).Photo:Chris Williams,2001Fig.7:The open-air theatre in the remains of the Roman
322、 citadel.Photo:From the authors collection,2023I.Monuments and Sites 37thodox Church with the direct participation of Simferopol and Crimea Metropolitan Tikhon(Shevkunov).The museum-pre-serve(the Russian administration of the WHS)itself,as a new structure created on the site of Tauric Chersonesos,he
323、aded by the former director of the St.Petersburg Waterworks Elena Morozova,does not interfere with the construction work and is going to soon move all its departments to the buildings of the New Chersonesos Archaeological Park.In January 2024,the occupation authorities and the Russian Or-thodox Chur
324、ch announced the so-called renewal of the mon-astery in the buildings of the National Preserve of the Tauric Chersonesos(Fig.9).2 This means that the National Preserve of the Tauric Chersone-sos will be evicted from all its buildings to newly built ones on the destroyed part of the site.Actually,the
325、 authentic museum was turned into a monastery3,the most valuable things were exported to the Russian Federa-tion4,the evidence and building remains of the ancient demo-cratic polis were closed for exhibition,they are under the open air theatre5.Instead,a fake was created-the so-called New Chersoneso
326、s,which will shine with gold and new paint,with smooth green lawns,fountains,Chinese bridges and a tem-2 The St.Volodymyr monastery of the Russian Orthodox Church was created on the area of the Tauric Chersonesos site in the middle of the XIX century and functioned till 1924,when it was closed by th
327、e Communist power of the RSFSR.The buildings of the monastery were handed to the museum of Chersonesos.The St.Vologymyr cathedral was destroyed in World War II and reconstructed by the Kyiv community in its own fundaments at the be-ginning of the 2000s.The monastery was not built until 2024.3 https:
328、/ http:/vgosau.kiev.ua/novyny/arkheolohichna-spadshy-na-na-okupovanykh-terytotiyakh/1351-vyvezennia-arkh-tsinnostei-kher-sones?fbclid=IwAR3WiiTLQ7VDEkknQ6bzt7jUt5XF6wIw92CSM59Gl-9JrYVSLzaFeAMwJHvA5 https:/ with a dome that will open like in James Bond movies(Fig.1012).How does this correlate with Ru
329、ssian legislation?The fact is that after the occupation,the authorities of the Russian Feder-ation refused to recognize the Ukrainian documentation for the WHS and accepted by UNESCO for registration.Instead,new documentation was created for the site of Tauric Chersone-sos,and a number of examinatio
330、ns were conducted to approve such works on the site.Acts of conducting“expert”work were signed by a number of archaeologists known outside Crimea-Yuriy Zaitsev,Igor Khrapunov,and the archaeological research that became the basis for these acts was carried out by Ludmila Kovalevska and Emil Seydaliev
331、.Fig.9:Consecration of the St.Volodymyr male monastery of the Russian Orthodox Church on the territory of the National Preserve of the Tauric Chersonesos.Photo:From the authors collection,January 2024Fig.s 1012:Buildings and streets of the archaeological park of the New Chersone-sos.Photos from the
332、authors collection, I.Monuments and SitesThus,not only the laws of Ukraine on the protection and man-agement of archaeological and cultural heritage were violated,but also international documents,in particular the manage-ment plan of the site,the requirements of UNESCO regarding the coord
333、ination of all landscape transformations around the site and work on the site and buffer zone.What about the restoration?Russia has not changed its ap-proach to the restoration of cultural heritage objects since the time of the USSR.They consisted not so much in preserving the object in its historical authentic form,but in giving the object an attractive appearance.Thus,the Soviet restoration allo