The Dacian fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains: 20 years without a management system

Full text

World Heritage Watch
Report 2019
World Heritage Watch Report 2019
World Heritage Watch

World Heritage Watch
World Heritage Watch
Report 2019
Berlin 2019

2
Bibliographical Information
World Heritage Watch: World Heritage Watch Report 2018. Berlin 2018
184 pages, with 276 photos and 80 graphics and maps
Published by World Heritage Watch e.V.
Berlin 2019
ISBN 978-3-00-062800-9
NE: World Heritage Watch
1. 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. Participation
Worl d Heri tag e Watch
© World Heritage Watch e.V. 2019
This 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 inadmissable and punishable. This refers especially to reproduction of figures
and/or text in print or xerography, translations, microforms and the data storage and processing in electronical 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 or of its au-
thorities, 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 opinions
expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of the editors, and do not commit them.
No part of this 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.
Senatsverwaltung
für Wirtschaft, Energie
und Betriebe
Landesstelle für
Entwicklungs-
zusammenarbeit
This publication has been produced with support by the Landesstelle für Entwicklungszusammenarbeit Berlin. The con-
tents of this publication are the sole responsibility of World Heritage Watch e.V. and can in no way be taken to reflect
the views of the Landesstelle für Entwicklungszusammenarbeit Berlin.
Editorial Team
Stephan Doempke (chief editor), Pratiti Joshi, Andrea Martinez Fernandez, Michael Turner and Maritta von Bieberstein
Koch-Weser. Map editor: Andrea Martinez Fernandez
Upper left: Katz Castle and the Rhine river, with the disturbing roof of the new Loreley concert hall in the background
(Stephan Doempke); Upper right: A mud volcano in Azerbaijan (Hartmut Müller), Lower left: Former Town Hall of
Bolama, Guninea-Bissau (Francisco Nogueira), Lower right: An orangutan rescued from a destroyed rainforest in Sumatra
(Katie Cleary / Orangutan Information Centre)
Back cover map: Andrea Martinez Fernandez
Cover, Design and Layout: Bianka Gericke, LayoutManufaktur.Berlin
Printed by: Buch- und Offsetdruckerei H.Heenemann GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin

3
Contents
I. Natural Properties 9
Water Infrastructure Impacts on World Heritage – How to Prevent or Minimize them? ................................10
Eugene Simonov, Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition (RwB)1
Shadow Report on the State of Conservation of the World Heritage Property Bialowieza Forest .........................14
Prepared by a NGO Coalition of ClientEarth, Wild Poland Foundation, Greenmind Foundation, Greenpeace Poland,
Polish Society for the Protection of Birds (OTOP) – BirdLife Poland, Workshop for All Beings, WWF Poland
New Threats to the World Natural Heritage in Russia ...........................................................18
Mikhail Kreyndlin, Anna Podgorodneva, Igor Glushkov, Greenpeace Russia
The Western Caucasus – a Candidate for Insription in the List of „World Heritage In Danger“...........................21
Mikhail Kreindlin, Greenpeace, and Yulia Naberezhnaya, Russian Geographical Society
Landscapes of Dauria – How to Prevent a Water Management Crisis?..............................................24
Sukhgerel Dugersuren and Eugene Simonov, Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition
The Mud Volcanoes of Azerbaijan – a Potential UNESCO World Heritage Site ........................................28
Hartmut. E. J. Müller
Tanzania: Selous Game Reserve on Endangered List for four years by 2018 … and counting ............................31
Gunter Wippel, uranium network
Development of Large-scale Industrial Complexes in the Sundarbans ..............................................32
Sultana Kamal, National Committee for Saving the Sundarbans
Sumatra’s Last Jungles: Protecting and Enhancing the Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra .........................34
Katharine Lu, on behalf of Friends of the Earth Indonesia,
Wahana Lingkungan Hidup Indonesia (WALHI) and Friends of the Earth US
Losing the Great Barrier Reef: Australia’s Failures to Reduce Its Contributions to Climate Change .......................39
Noni Austin, Earthjustice | Jo-Anne Bragg, Environmental Defenders Office Louise Matthiesson,
Queensland Conservation Council | Brendan Sydes, Environmental Justice Australia |
Imogen Zethoven, Australian Marine Conservation Society
Government Push for Tourism Development Undermines a Proud Record ...........................................43
Geoff Law, Wilderness Society (Australia)
II. World Heritage Properties and Indigenous Peoples 47
Mikisew Cree First Nation’s Call to Better Safeguard Wood Buffalo National Park ....................................48
Submitted by: The Mikisew Cree First Nation
The Situation of the Kenya Lake System in the Great Rift Valley (Lake Bogoria) ......................................51
Wilson Kipkazi, Endorois Welfare Council
A Unique Landscape Under Threat: The ‘Three Parallel Rivers of Yunnan’ ...........................................53
Submitted by: International Campaign for Tibet

4
III. Cultural Landscapesand Mixed Sites 57
The Lake District – A Cultural Landscape Under Threat ..........................................................58
Fritz Groothues, Fiona Campbell and Jon Derry (Lakes Watch)
Multiple Threats to the Upper Middle Rhine Valley .............................................................62
Klaus Thomas, Rheinpassagen Citizens’ Initiative
Austria: Semmering Railway and Surrounding Landscape in Danger ...............................................67
Christian Schuhböck, Alliance for Nature
The Prosecco Region: A Contentious UNESCO World Heritage Nominee.............................................71
Gianluigi Salvador, Pesticide Action Network Italy
Lake Ohrid, Northern Macedonia – Where Concrete Rises and Waters Fall ..........................................74
Daniel Scarry and Emilija Apostolova Chalovska, Ohrid SOS
Management in Question at The Cultural Landscape of Bali Province ..............................................79
Wiwik Dharmiasih, Universitas Udayana
IV. Historic Cities and Urban Ensembles 83
The Monastery of El Carmen Bajo Affected by the Construction of the Quito Underground Metro .......................84
Gloria Galarza Peñaherrera, Colectivo Kitu Milenario
Serial Property of Saint Petersburg: In Need of Complex Solutions for Complicated Systems............................88
Elena Minchenok, ROST Fund and Russian National Heritage Preservation Society (VOOPIiK)
Preservation of the Territories of Veliky Novgorod and its Surroundings ............................................92
Iuliia Eremenko, University of Bamberg and Sociological Institute of the Russian Academy of Science
Liverpool Mercantile Maritime City..........................................................................96
Gerry Proctor, Engage Liverpool
The City of Vienna Allows a Real Estate Developer to Dictate His Land Use Plan ....................................100
Herbert Rasinger, Initiative Stadtbildschutz Wien
Gjirokastra, a Chronicle of Loss............................................................................102
Kreshnik Merxhani and Valmira Bozgo
Diyarbakir: First Destroyed and then Commercialized by Turkey’s Government......................................108
Ercan Ayboğa, Platform “No to the Destruction of Sur”

5
The Historic Bazaar Complex of Tabriz, Iran..................................................................112
Ghazal Nouri and Ali Bashash Alanagh
Meidan-e Emam, Esfahan, Iran............................................................................115
Ali Bashash Alanagh and Ghazal Nouri
Assessment of the Old City of Ghadames....................................................................120
Lamees BenSaad, Tripolitanian Society
Colonial Heritage at Risk: Bissau-Guinea – a Modernist African City ..............................................125
Sofia Cristina Mendonça Gaspar and Maria Isabel da Trindade Ferro
Multiple Dangers to Lamu Old Town .......................................................................131
Mohamed Athman Bakar, Save Lamu
The Historic Centre of Macao is still under threat .............................................................135
Anonymous authors
V. Monuments and Sites 137
Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites WHS Still Under Threat of Road Construction .............................138
Kate Fielden, Stonehenge Alliance[1]
Altamira: Integrity and Authenticity as a Political Tool .........................................................142
Andrea Martinez Fernández
Austria: Großglockner High Alpine Road –a World Heritage Site? ................................................145
Christian Schuhböck, Alliance for Nature
The Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains: 20 Years Without a Management System ............................148
Aurora Pețan, Dacica Foundation
The State of Conservation of Osun Osogbo Sacred Grove as of December 2018......................................152
Musa Oluwaseyi Hambolu, University of Jos
The Need for a New Campaign to Save Carthage .............................................................155
Oumaïma Gannouni
Ancient Thebes with its Necropolis: A Reactive Evaluation of the Eastern Part of the World Heritage Property ............161
Eman Shokry Hesham

6
Talgar World Heritage Site is Under Threat ..................................................................164
Submitted by Green Salvation
Civil Society Safeguarding Fort & Shalamar Gardens, Lahore ....................................................168
Imrana Tiwana, Lahore Conservation Society
The Makli Monuments and the State Party’s Reponses to their Preservation........................................172
Zulfiqar Ali Kalhoro, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE)
Annex 175
The Authors ...........................................................................................176

148 V. Monuments and Sites
The Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains:
20 Years Without a Management System
Aurora Pețan, Dacica Foundation
The Dacian fortresses of the Orăștie
Mountains is a serial WH Property con-
sisting of six monuments located in
South-West Transylvania, in the coun-
ties of Hunedoara (Sarmizegetusa
Regia, Costești-Cetățuie, Blidaru, Piatra
Roșie, Bănița) and Alba (Căpâlna) and
dating back to the period of the Dacian
Kingdom (between the 1
st
century
B.C. – the beginning of the 2nd century
A.D.).
In spite of the protection guaranteed
by Romanian legislation, more than
20 years after their World Heritage
listing, these monuments still do not
have a management system (except
Sarmizegetusa Regia, whose manage-
ment is recent and unprofessional)
and are neglected. Therefore, they are
prone to degradation and archaeologi-
cal looting, deprived of the valorisation
and promotion they well deserve, while
the protection of their Outstanding
Universal Value as defined by the World Heritage Convention
is not ensured.
Legislative issues
Although laws granting protection and a legal framework for
the management of these fortresses exist, they are either not
enforced or in conflict with one another.
Law 564/2001 stipulates that the monuments included in the
WH List are special objectives for whose protection the Ministry
of Internal Affairs is responsible, free of charge. However, this
has not been applied as such, as some articles of this law are
in conflict with the Law of Gendarmes. At present, there is an
initiative to modify this law, so that private security companies
will be in charge of protection instead.
The Government Decision 1268/2010 that approved the Program
of protection and management of UNESCO monuments had a
limited duration of five years. At the termination of this pro-
gram, no new one was elaborated, and, at present, these WH
Properties have no site managers and no management plans.
Management
In 1999 the Dacian Fortresses were included on the WH List
under criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv)1. Although 20 years have passed
since then, five out of the six fortresses still do not benefit from
any form of administration, being completely ignored and
abandoned. Nothing has been done during this period: They
are now in the same state (or even worse) as before enter-
ing the WH List. Their state of conservation is critical, no con-
solidation or restoration works have been done, they are not
guarded, not promoted, there are no informative materials for
tourists or guided tours, and the access routes and infrastruc-
ture are poor.
1 http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/906
Fig. 1: Location of the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains, Romania.
Background map: SRTM Worldwide Elevation Data, adapted by Aurora Petan

V. Monuments and Sites 149
This is due to the Ministry of Culture’s lack of interest, as it al-
leges issues related to the property regime over the respective
land.
In 2012 the Hunedoara County Council succeeded in obtaining
the transfer of the management rights of the Sarmizegetusa
Regia Fortress from the Ministry of Culture. For six years, the
county administration has not succeeded in setting up an effi-
cient management. There is no management plan, and the re-
sponsible staff has not been trained for that specific job. They
don’t have any expert in heritage management or tourism, and
the only archaeologist position that existed has been recently
closed. Moreover, according to the current job description, the
site manager position requires only middle school education.
Although some achievements are visible (elaboration of visiting
regulations; guarding of the site; periodical cleaning of vegeta-
tion), the site has been seriously affected on several occasions
by the action of its administration. They have used inadequate
methods of site maintenance and cleaning, like burning vegeta-
tion on large areas, which resulted in the destruction of original
stone blocks of the fortification, and impairing deep soil inside
the fortification and the sacred area.
Fig. 4: Sarmizegetusa Regia: A tree collapsed and fell on the ancient wall
during woodcutting works carried out by the site administration.
Drone photo: Agent Green, February 2018
Using inappropriate techniques of woodcutting, the site admin-
istration carried out works that seriously affected the monu-
ment, like driving heavy machinery inside the site and letting
trees fall down over its walls.
The management fails, the lack of a management plan, the in-
ability to raise funds, the lack of transparency and openness to
the public, and the absence of communication with civil society
make this management mechanism ineffective.
Fig. 2: Piatra Roșie Fortress: the only explanatory panel (left) and the main entrance to the fortification (right). Photos: Aurora Pețan
Fig. 3: Burning of vegetation at Sarmizegetusa Regia that has affected the monument. Left: Dacian block of stone burnt by the site administration; right: firepit near the west-
ern side of the fortification. Photos: Aurora Pețan, 2013

150 V. Monuments and Sites
The Hunedoara County Council would like to take over the
management of the other four fortresses in the county as well,
and to apply the same management system as at Sarmizegetusa
Regia, considered by them „a successful model”. However, we
consider that this model needs decisive improvements before
being applied to the other monuments. Furthermore, the sixth
fortress, located in Alba County, would be left outside this pro-
ject.
In our opinion, a better solution would be a common man-
agement scheme for all six fortresses, with a shared vision but
with individual strategies for each fortress, coordinated and
controlled by the Ministry of Culture and applied by the local
administrations of the two counties.
Unreported and false data
Despite numerous problematic interventions in the WH
Property and its buffer area, the WH Committee has never been
informed about the state of conservation of the property. We
could mention at least the building of a parking lot in front of
the main entrance to Sarmizegetusa Regia in 2011, which was
made using bulldozers, without any authorization or archae-
ological surveillance, leading to the destruction of a sector of
the site.
Moreover, the Periodic Report (Second Cycle, 2014) for this WH
Property contains a lot of false data:
• It claims that there have been six funding sources for the
conservation of these fortresses in the previous five years, in-
cluding international and national donations, although there
has been no intervention at all for conservation in the last
20 years.
• It also claims that there are site museums, adequate access
routes to all the fortresses, visitor centres, information ma-
terials, and transportation facilities: In fact, all of these are
completely absent. There is no public transportation to any
of the six fortresses, the access ways are difficult (and some-
times even dangerous, as for Bănița fortress, which does not
benefit of a path cut out on the slope, and consequently
tourists have to climb on the rocks), and the museums and
visitor centre do not exist.
On the other hand, the report stresses the presence of a large
number of positive factors, non-existent in reality, in compar-
ison to the absence of negative factors affecting the monu-
Fig. 5: Sarmizegetusa Regia, the main entrance to the fortress affected by heavy machines during woodcutting works. Left: February 2018
drone photo by Agent Green; right: October 2018, photo Aurora Pețan
Fig. 7: Sarmizegetusa Regia, a partially collapsed wall. Photo: Aurora Petan, 2018
Fig. 6: Sarmizegetusa Regia, unauthorized bulldozer intervention very close to the
ancient wall and to the main gate of the fortress. Photo: citynews.ro, 2011

V. Monuments and Sites 151
ments. According to the report, the balance is ten to one, the
negative factors being mentioned only as a possibility. In fact,
many of the positive factors reported are non-existent (housing,
major visitor accommodations, interpretative and visiting facili-
ties, land conversion, forestry, etc.), while the omitted negative
ones are very real: grazing of domesticated animals, forestry/
wood production, relative humidity, temperature, water (rain),
micro-organisms, illegal activities, deliberate destruction of her-
itage, invasive terrestrial species, management activities, etc.
The report’s conclusion is that the WH Property’s state of con-
servation is good, despite the obvious progressive degradation
of the sites.
The consequences of these false reports are serious since the
data provided has been used by the WH Committee to produce
statistics and assessments in order to implement regional strat-
egies. They are also available to WH Committee members and
partners as well as to the general public, distorting the results
of the analyses in which they are used.
Lack of awareness
Presently there is no policy for involving local communities or
raising public awareness about the value of this WH Property.
Local authorities are not trained properly. Moreover, it seems
that also at a central level there is no awareness of the impor-
tance of these heritage sites and of the necessity and the obli-
gation to implement an efficient management system to ensure
the protection of the Outstanding Universal Value of this prop-
erty as defined by the World Heritage Convention.
In conclusion, neglect is the watchword for this WH Property in
the last decades.
Recommendations
The Dacica Foundation asks the World Heritage Committee:
• To urge the State Party to accelerate the adoption of legisla-
tion regarding the management of its WH Properties;
• To request the State Party to establish a management
mechanism and body for the entire property, as it has be-
come evident that the existing management system for
Sarmizegetusa Regia is not functional and adequate for such
a complex area and for all six monuments;
• To ask the State Party to ensure the transparency and public
participation in all assessments and to work according to the
requirements of the World Heritage Committee for involving
local communities and civil society organizations as key part-
ners in managing the property;
• To recommend the State Party to invite a Reactive
Monitoring Mission for the inspection and evaluation of the
State of Conservation of the Property.
Fig. 8: Cows grazing inside the Fortress Costești-Cetătuie and a deteriorated protec-
tion system for a Dacian building. Photo: Daniel Guță, 2016