Content uploaded by Aurora Petan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aurora Petan on Jul 24, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
107
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
2. WORLD HERITAGE SITES MANAGEMENT
AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses
of the Orăștie Mountains
Aurora PEA N
Abstract
Romania has signed the World Heritage Convention in 1990. Its process of
implementation was carried out along two decades, but the resulting legal
framework does not grant at present the appropriate protection and management
of the sites inscribed on the World Heritage List. Moreover, even if steps have
been taken towards the implementation of the Convention, the compliance
with it is far from being a reality. This study brings forth the fact that in the case
of the serial World Heritage Site “Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains”,
there is a twofold non-compliance with the Convention. First, there is a
substantive non-compliance, resulting from the almost complete dereliction of
the site: in the last 20 years, there was no management system and 5 of its 6
component parts have been abandoned. Secondly, there is a procedural non-
compliance, resulting from the fake reporting to the World Heritage Centre,
as well as from the omission of some reports. The real situation has recently
surfaced, due to the intervention of the civil society, and the World Heritage
Centre triggered the reactive monitoring process for this site. At the same
time, the possible causes of this non-compliance have been analysed in view of
identifying urgent solutions meant to re-establish the balance with respect to
the Convention. The main directions of action proposed are the improvement
of the legal framework and the adoption of appropriate heritage policies.
Keywords: World Heritage Convention, Romania, Dacian Fortresses of the
Orăștie Mountains, implementation, compliance.
The World Heritage Convention
Introduction
The Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and
Natural Heritage has been adopted by the UNESCO General Conference
on 16 November 1972 in Paris and it represents one of the most powerful
international tools created by UNESCO. Its aim was to create a world program
for the identification, protection and conservation of the cultural and natural
108 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
heritage, considered to have an outstanding universal value. The most visible
outcome of the Convention is the World Heritage List, established in 1978.
This is not a mere ranking of tourist destinations, but a key-instrument for the
protection and conservation of this heritage. Today, the Convention bears the
signature of 193 countries of which 167 out of which have properties included
in the World Heritage List. In 1978, the list included 12 sites, and in 2018
their number had reached 1092 in all. The huge popularity enjoyed by this
Convention all over the world is due to its spreading well beyond the circle
of experts, in all social strata. This concept of heritage has been successfully
implemented worldwide thanks to the World Heritage community and the
international efforts to conserve Outstanding Universal Value (Albert and
Ringbeck 2015: 3–4).
The concept of Outstanding Universal Value is the cornerstone of World
Heritage processes (including nominations, Periodic Reporting, etc.) and
it is the basis for the protection and management of a property (UNESCO
2018: 14). This is defined in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation
of the World Heritage Convention, which shows that this value refers to
“cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend
national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future
generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this
heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a
whole” (UNESCO 2017: §49).
The three pillars that make this program work are the World Heritage
Committee (decisional body, made of the representatives of 21 states, by
rotation), the World Heritage Centre (the secretariat of the Committee made
of experts) and the Advisory Bodies (ICCROM, ICOMOS and IUCN). The
participants in the program are the State Parties to the Convention, which
create the legal and institutional framework needed for the implementation
of the Convention at the national level and provide the necessary resources,
as well as the site managers, stakeholders and other partners in the protection
of World Heritage Properties, which grant the effective, day-by-day imple-
mentation of the Convention.
The main instruments of control over the state parties are the Reactive
Monitoring and the Periodic Reporting. Moreover, the Committee takes into
consideration the reports of the non-state actors (individuals, NGOs etc.) on
the way the Convention is observed.
In order to have the Convention implemented, the Operational Guidelines
have been elaborated. Almost half a century after its adoption, the interpretation
and implementation of the Convention have significantly changed, in
109
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
accordance with the evolution of the context. Therefore, the Operational
Guidelines benefitted from successive improvements and were completed with
a series of decisions made by the World Heritage Committee.
A short history of the Convention
The Convention was born as a result of the social transformations following
World War II. The massive destructions caused by the war, but also the urban
development and modernization that took place in the next decades led to the
need for a program meant to protect the cultural and natural heritage. On the
other hand, the evolution of the social context led to successive improvements
in the implementation of the Convention, which knew several stages (von
Droste 2011; Albert and Ringbeck 2015: 59–82)
The first stage was between 1978 and 1991 and was characterized by
attracting as many countries as possible to join the Convention and by issuing
an initial List of high quality. The monitoring, reporting and management plans
had not been envisaged by the agenda yet.
During the second stage (1992–1999), the World Heritage Centre was
created, the Secretariat of the World Heritage Committee, which has been
making a fundamental contribution to the implementation of the Convention.
In the same period, preparations were being made for the monitoring and
periodic reporting on the site conservation state, the concepts of “cultural
landscape” and “historic cities” were introduced in the Operational Guidelines,
while the term of “authenticity” acquired a more flexible interpretation
(Nara Conference, 1994), and the education for the heritage was given more
importance. The list was both geographically and thematically biased, with an
obvious western tendency and, as a result, a global strategy was issued in order
to rebalance it.
The third stage (2000–2005) is represented by the endeavour of increasing
the credibility of the World Heritage List. The number of properties included in
the list increased abruptly, but over 50% of the list was represented by European
sites. This was a test for the Convention credibility and, as a result, the access
to the World Heritage is very strictly regulated. An important moment is
represented by the Budapest Declaration (2002), thereby four strategic
objectives were established for the implementation of the Convention, “the 4
Cs”: Credibility, Conservation, Capacity-building and Communication. In
2003, the Convention on the Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage was adopted,
meant to work in close relation with the World Heritage Convention.
The fourth stage (2006 – present-day) is characterized by a huge extension
of the list, which led to overloading the Centre, Committee and Advisory Bodies
110 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
with tasks. The first delisting is taking place now, but only two sites have been
deleted from the World Heritage List. In 2007, the “fifth C”, for “Communities”,
was added for to the existing Strategic Objectives (Albert 2012). In spite of
all the issues encountered (including the politicization of the World Heritage
Committee) (Meskel 2013), the program is considered the most successful one
and it has fundamentally influenced the way in which mankind considers its
own cultural and natural heritage.
Implementation, compliance, effectiveness1
The implementation of the Convention by the States Parties is done by
transposing the Convention and its concepts into the national legislation on the
protection of the cultural heritage and nature conservation. This is usually a
flexible, long term, and several-stage process, which is more advanced in the
states that signed the Convention earlier and already had powerful legislation
and a long tradition in the protection of the heritage.
Implementation of the Convention does not automatically imply compliance
with it. The compliance goes far beyond the implementation. It refers to
whether the state parties adhere to the provisions of the Convention and to the
implementing measures that they have instituted.
Consequently, a good legislative framework is not always a guarantee
that the law shall be enforced. There are a lot of factors that facilitate, delay
or even impede the application of the Convention: the country’s level of
economic development, which determines the number of resources allotted to
the protection of the patrimony; the level of education for heritage in all social
strata; the policies meant to promote and increase the awareness of the general
public about the value of this heritage; the involvement of local communities
and the civil society in the protection and promotion of the heritage; the
existence of heritage experts etc.
Effectiveness is related to compliance, but it is not identical to it. A State may
comply with the Convention, but miss the actual achievement of its objectives.
Romania and the World Heritage Convention
Romania joined the Convention on the 16 May 1990, by the Resolution
187/1990. In 2020 there will be three decades since this moment: this period
proved too short for effective implementation of the Convention. The first
decade was a passive one when a few things were done. Towards the end of this
decade, most of the current Romanian World Heritage Sites were inscribed in
List, so that the need for specific legislation turned vital. The next decade was
1 Cf. Jakobson and Weiss 1998.
111
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
characterized by the passing of special laws, which were hardly applied. It is
only in the third decade that there was an attempt at enforcing these laws, but
with poor impact.
Romania failed in keeping up with the changes undergone by the
interpretation of the Convention, the gap is obvious, particularly at the
legislative level. At present, the World Heritage Sites do not benefit in
Romania from an appropriate legal protection and the protection and
management of these sites are in many cases at the same stage as before
joining the Convention. Moreover, the lack of education for the heritage at
all levels and the low degree of awareness made the Convention in Romania
almost unknown and the sites to be neglected. A happy exception is
represented by the natural sites, which had a different route and managed to
meet the requirements of UNESCO.
Romania’s World Heritage Sites
At present, Romania has eight sites inscribed on the World Heritage List:
six cultural and two natural ones (UNESCO 2019a) (Table 1). The first
Romanian site inscribed was the Danube Delta, in 1991, one year after the
Convention was signed. In 1993, it was followed by the Monastery of Horezu,
the Churches of Moldavia (extended in 2010) and the Villages with Fortified
Churches in Transylvania (extended in 1999). In 1999, the list also included
the Wooden Churches of Maramureș, the Historic Centre of Sighișoara and the
Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains. The latest site that entered the list
represents an extension to the transboundary site Ancient and Primeval Beech
Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe, to which Romania
contributed with its old forests in 2017.
Other 15 sites were included in the Tentative List, which represents the
“antechamber” of the World Heritage List. 12 out of those were there as early as
1991. The latest site included on this list is Roșia Montană Mining Landscape,
in 2016. 2
At present, the eight World Heritage Sites in Romania benefit from
different levels of protection. One can say that the general situation is good
in the case of natural sites. The Danube Delta has a long tradition in the
management and protection of the site. In 1993, the Danube Delta Biosphere
Reserve was founded, a public institution subordinated to the Ministry of
the Environment. The site has a management plan, periodically updated
and approved by government decision. On the contrary, cultural in a less
2 An update of the Tentative List of Romania was made in 2017, but the new list has not made public
yet by the National Institute of Heritage and has not even reached the World Heritage Centre.
112 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
favourable situation. The different levels they are on, in terms of protection
and valorisation, are the result of the complexity of the sites, their location,
the degree of involvement of the local authorities, community and civil
society, as well as other factors. The single sites are managed more easily
than the serial ones. The rural sites or those located up in the mountains
are harder to access than the urban ones. For almost all these sites, the lack
of management plans, conservation policies and, for some of them, even
management systems should place them among the most endangered sites, at
least in Europe. Unfortunately, there is still no estimation of the real situation
of all the UNESCO sites in Romania.
As to the relation with the World Heritage Centre, only two out of the six
cultural site sent reports related to their state of conservation and only three
took part in the first cycle of periodic reporting (see Table 2).
The legal framework
To implement the Convention in Romania, a national legislative framework
has been elaborated, but the process is very slow and it has not come to an
end yet.
The basic law was passed only 10 years after the Convention was signed, i.e.
the Government Ordinance 47/2000 meant to establish means of protection
for the historical monuments that are inscribed on the List of World Heritage,
approved with amendments by Law 564/2001. The Ordinance decrees that the
conservation, restoration and turning to account of the historical monuments
that are inscribed on the World Heritage List represent an objective of national
interest and it assigns a series of attributions to the local administration
authorities. It also envisages the elaboration, by the Ministry of Culture, of a
framework-program for the protection and management of the Romanian
monuments inscribed on the World Heritage List. The UNESCO sites are
declared strategic objectives through this Ordinance and it is decided that
they will be guarded by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, for free. This has
never happened and the effects of the law being ignored have been devastating,
particularly in the case of the Dacian fortresses, where archaeological poaching
escalated to a climax, dozens of kilograms of antique gold and silver objects
being stolen from the site. The representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
claim that this provision cannot be enforced as it would conflict with the Law
of the Gendarmes. At present, a proposal of amendment to this provision is in a
legal process, which would entrust the guard of UNESCO sites to private guard
and protection companies.
113
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
Table 1. Romanian sites inscribed on the World Heritage List
Type No. Name Code and date
of inscription Criteria
Cultural
sites
1.
Villages with Fortied Churches in
Transylvania
596bis – 1993,
1999 (iv)
1.1. Câlnic
1.2. Viscri
1.3. Dârjiu
1.4. Saschiz
1.5. Prejmer
1.6. Biertan
1.7. Valea Viilor
2. Monastery of Horezu 597 – 1993 (ii)
3.
Churches of Moldavia
598bis – 1993,
2010 (i) (iv)
3.1. Arbore
3.2. Humor
3.3. Moldovița
3.4. Pătrăuți
3.5. Probota
3.6. Suceava
3.7. Voroneț
3.8. Sucevița
4. Historic Centre of Sighioara 902 – 1999 (iii) (iv)
5.
Wooden Churches of Maramure
904 – 1999 (iv)
5.1. Bârsana
5.2. Budești
5.3. Desești
5.4. Ieud
5.5. Plopiș
5.6. Poienile Izei
5.7. Rogoz
5.8. Șurdești
6.
Dacian Fortresses of the Ortie Mountains
906 – 1999 (ii) (iii)
(iv)
6.1. Sarmizegetusa Regia – Grădiștea de
Munte
6.2. Costești–Cetățuie
6.3. Blidaru
6.4. Piatra Roșie
6.5. Bănița
6.6. Căpâlna
114 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
Natural
sites
7. Danube Delta 588 – 1991 (vii) (x)
8.
Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the
Carpathians
and Other Regions of Europe
1133ter –
2017 (ix)
8.1. Cheile Nerei–Beușnița
8.2. Șinca
8.3. Slătioara
8.4. Cozia
8.5. Domogled–Valea Cernei
8.6. Groșii Țibleșului
8.7. Izvoarele Nerei
8.8. Strîmbu Băiuț
Table 2. The cultural World Heritage Sites from Romania.
The situation of the reporting to the World Heritage Centre
and of the management plans
No Site
Number
of State of
Conservation
reports
Periodic
Reporting –
Cycle I
Periodic
Reporting –
Cycle II
Management
plan
1. Horezu Monastery – × × ×
2. Churches of Moldavia 3 × × –
3. Villages with Fortied
Churches in Transylvania – × × –
4. Wooden Churches of
Maramureș – – × –
5. Historic Centre of
Sighișoara 9 – × –
6. Dacian Fortresses of the
Orăștie Mountains – – × –
The Ordinance was detailed and enforced through several Government
Decisions. The first is Decision 493/2000, which approved the methodology
for monitoring the monuments inscribed on the World Heritage List, as
well as the methodology for the development of management plans for these
monuments. According to the Ordinance, the monitoring of the UNESCO
sites shall be done twice a year by the local public administration authorities,
by means of accredited experts. Monitoring is defined in this Decision as “the
action of periodical assessment of the measures taken to protect the historical
monuments inscribed on the World Heritage List”. In many cases, this
115
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
monitoring is formal or is not done at all, particularly in the sites that do not
benefit from protection or are even abandoned. There is no management plan
elaborated for any cultural site so far, with the exception of Horezu Monastery.
The second normative act is the Government Decision no. 738/2008 on
the steps to be taken in order to fund, elaborate and update the documentation
for the land management and urbanism for the zones that include historical
monuments belonging to the World Heritage List. Neither this Decision had
any effects, except for partial ones. Some sites still lack such documentation.
Finally, the most important normative act, deriving from the Government
Ordinance is the Decision 1268/2010 (amended and completed by
Government the Decision 1102/2011) approving the Program of protection
and management of the monuments inscribed on the World Heritage List. It
took the Ministry of Culture 10 years to elaborate this program, as outlined
by the Ordinance. In other words, between 1990 and 2010, the Romanian
World Heritage Sites had no guiding in developing management plans or in
organizing and turning into account a management system. Although it was a
framework program, it was elaborated for five years only and its effect ceased
in 2016, and it has not been renewed. At present, there is no legal framework
for the protection and management of the Romanian World Heritage Sites.
The failure of the Protection and Management Program
The Protection and management program was a failure for several reasons.
The District Councils were slow in taking action. The program asked that, for
each historical monument inscribed on the World Heritage List, a monument
coordinator should be appointed and paid by the District Council; a UNESCO
Organization Committee with a fixed composition was also to be established
in order to elaborate the annual plans. The first site for which the Program
was applied was Horezu Monastery, which, in January 2012, already had the
committee constituted and in the next year benefited from a management plan,
elaborated with European financing. In the same year, they established the
Committees in the district of Alba, Mureș and Suceava, and in 2013 – in Bistrița
and Maramureș. The District Council of Hunedoara did not start applying for
the Program until 2014, the moment when a site manager was to be appointed
in order to complete the Periodic Reporting to the World Heritage Centre.
The Program was also hard to apply because of the confusing way of
defining the UNESCO site. Both the Ordinance and the Government Decision
use the term “historic monument inscribed on the World Heritage List”. The
term “historic monument” is defined in Law 422/2001 on the protection of
historic monuments as follows: “properties, constructions and lands lying on
116 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
the Romanian territory, significant for the national and world history, culture
and civilization” (Art. 1.2). According to the same law, there are three categories
of historic monuments: monuments, ensembles and sites (Art. 3). Thus, there
is potential confusion between the generic term of the historic monument and
the category of monuments.
In the Convention and in the Operational Guidelines, the term used is
“(World Heritage) Property”, and in the documentation of the World Heritage
Centre the general term “(World Heritage) Site” is used. In fact, the equivalence
between site and property also results from the definition of the three types of
properties: cultural sites, natural sites and mixed sites. The Convention points
out that “cultural heritage” includes monuments, group of buildings and sites
– that is, the same categories that can be found in the Romanian law, but the
terminology allows no confusion in this case. In other words, Romanian law
understands by “historic monument (inscribed on the World Heritage List)”
what the Convention understands by “cultural site” or “cultural heritage”.
Besides the confusions it generates, the use of the term “historic monument”
in the national legislation represents a backward state in the interpretation of the
Convention, which, as shown above, as early as its second stage, extended the
concept of “cultural site”, introducing new concepts such as “cultural landscape”
or “historic city”. These two are still unknown in the Romanian legislation
dedicated to the world heritage, although both categories are represented in
Romania and inscribed on the World Heritage List or on the Tentative List.
The impact of the confusion between “historic monument” and the category
“monument” is obvious from the fact that the Government Decision has been
applied individually for each monument (=component part) of a serial site, and
not for a serial site as a whole. Actually, it is obvious from the decisions of the
District Councils that the component parts are considered historic monuments
inscribed independently on the World Heritage List. For instance, the Decision
of the Hunedoara District Council 83/2014 establishes Committees and
coordinators for “each monument on the territory of Hunedoara District
inscribed on the World Heritage List”, and there is no mentioning of the
World Heritage Site (“Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains”), but of its
component parts lying on the territory of this District.
This was enabled by the general policy of the Government Ordinance,
which assigns to the local public administration’s responsibilities over the sites
and parts of sites located on the territory of a sole District, without taking into
consideration the site in its entirety, when it extends over several Districts.
A World Heritage Site can be single or serial, and the latter has two or several
parts and it can be national, transnational or transboundary. At present, 5 out of
117
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
the 8 World Heritage Sites in Romania are serial sites, with several components
lying over different Districts: 7 villages with fortified churches in 5 Districts, 6
Dacian fortresses in 2 Districts, 8 churches from Moldova in a single County, 8
wooden churches in one District and a transboundary natural site, the Ancient
and Primeval Beech Forests, which extends over 12 countries, and Romania
has 8 components in 6 Districts. If we also consider the serial sites from the
Tentative List, which are protected by the same legal framework, the number of
components and Districts is multiplied.
The Operational Guidelines show that the serial site is a whole site, with two or
more components related by clearly defined links, each of them contributing to the
Outstanding Universal Value of the property as a whole. As a result, the Guidelines
have it that in order to avoid excessive fragmentation of the components, the
process of nomination of the property, including the selection of the component
parts, should take fully into account the overall manageability and coherence of
the property (UNESCO 2017: §137). The Guidelines insist that a management
system or mechanisms for ensuring the coordinated management of the separate
components are essential (UNESCO 2017: §114). The UNESCO Report on
serial nominations and properties from 2010 stresses that serial sites should be
treated in the same way as single sites (UNESCO 2010a). These aspects are also
stressed in the UNESCO handbooks for the management World Heritage Sites:
“There should also be a management system at the level of the whole property that
should ensure communication and coordination between all component parts.
(…). The management system for a serial property should regularly review and
reinforce where feasible the coordinating mechanisms to increase the cohesion
and effectiveness of its management as a World Heritage property, and respond
to changes that affect its component parts” (UNESCO 2013a: 62). Coordination
is so much more necessary in the case of properties that extend over several
administrative areas: “A steering group is essential for properties that extend
beyond one administrative area (nearly always the case for cultural landscapes
and for serial properties) or countries (transboundary properties). It should be
assembled at the earliest possible stage and a calendar was drawn up for its regular
meetings and consultations” (UNESCO 2013a: 130). As to legislation, UNESCO
recommends in the case of serial properties, specific mechanisms (possibly new
legislation) in the case serial properties that may need to be developed. (UNESCO
2013a: 69; see also Engels, Ohnesorge and Burmester 2009: 10).
Unfortunately, such requirements are not to be found in Romanian
legislation. Implementation of the Convention would have involved estab-
lishing, through the national law, systems of trans-County management for
each serial site that has components in several counties (and, of course, systems
118 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
for the serial sites in a single District). Such a system would have assured the
protection of the outstanding universal value of the respective site, as well as
the coherence and coordination of components, irrespective of their form of
management in each District. In exchange, law completely ignores the serial
sites as wholes, ignoring altogether the coordination of their components and
holds the local authorities responsible for the components of various sites on
the territory of a single District.
Therefore, this law has two major drawbacks: 1. the confusion between
the historic monument and the monument as a category of the historical
monument, and 2. the criterion of the District administration. As a result, when
the Protection Program was launched in Romania, it was not applied to each
World Heritage Site of Romania, but for every single site and for each separate
component part of each serial site.
We ended up in two unnatural situations. On the one hand, a District
that hosted 5 out of 6 components of a serial site had appointed the same
coordinator for all 5 and set up 5 UNESCO Committees with the same
composition (the only difference was the representative of the local council
if the components were in different communes), which did not communicate
in any way with the Committee for the sixth component, located in another
District and neither with the coordinator of that component. On the other
hand, a District that had components from two serial sites of different type
and epoch (an antique archaeological site and a village with a fortified
medieval church), appointed the same coordinator for both.
The system existed mainly formally and for a short time. The monument
coordinators worked as site managers in relation with the World Heritage
Centre during the second Periodic Reporting, but the existence of several
coordinators with equal responsibilities for the same serial site led to confusions
and inaccurate reporting, although the reporting methodology requires just
one site manager to draw up the report for a serial site (UNESCO 2016: 22).
This clearly proves that there is no similarity between the management
system recommended by UNESCO and the one specified in the Romanian law.
In 2017, the National Institute of Heritage sent a proposal to the Ministry
of Culture in order for the latter to initiate a new Government Decision on
the Program of Protection and Management of UNESCO sites for the latter.
Although the new program contains many improvements, it is still based on the
criterion of District administration, imposed by the Government Ordinance.
The project has not yet been debated by the legislative bodies yet, but, in case
it is approved as is, it is bound to be another unsuccessful one, as the problems
from the previous program have not been overcome.
119
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
It is quite obvious why this criterion of task distribution to the District
councils has been adopted: because it involved much lower costs than setting
up new structures. It is true that local administrations should be the ones to
manage the sites and UNESCO site components on their territory, but it is
equally necessary to coordinate and control these activities.
Another reason why the program failed was the lack of communication
between those who make laws and those who apply them. Such a law should
be made after consulting its beneficiaries, as they are the ones who know best
what problems might arise in its application. In this situation, too, UNESCO
recommends: “Policy-makers in central government must be fully aware of
routine management issues. If not, weak links may exist between ministry-level
law-making and property-level operations” (UNESCO 2013a: 69).
This deadlock can be broken only if Government Ordinance 47/2000
is substantially modified or if a new law is passed, in order to wipe out the
confusions and establish managing structures for the serial sites, thereby
turning into account the new strategic objectives of the World Heritage
Convention. It is only after, that the elaboration of a new Program of protection
and management can start.
In conclusion, the legal framework for the implementation of the Con-
vention in Romania is very weak and needs urgent amendments. Before such
amendments have been made, the entire process of implementation of the
Convention will stay blocked and the World Heritage Sites in Romania will
continue to be unprotected.
Case study: The Dacian Fortresses of the Ortie Mountains
The World Heritage Site facing the worst issues is “Dacian Fortresses of the
Orăștie Mountains”, which has never benefited from any management system
since its listing in the World Heritage List, while five out of its six component parts
are abandoned. It is the most complex UNESCO site from Romania, the one out
of all the Romanian World Heritage Sites that met the most criteria for listing.
The site history3
The Dacian fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains form a serial property
consisting of six component parts located in South-West Transylvania, in the
Districts of Hunedoara (Sarmizegetusa Regia – Grădiștea de Munte, Costești–
Cetățuie, Blidaru, Piatra Roșie, Bănița) and Alba (Căpâlna) (Figure 1). The
most important of them is Sarmizegetusa Regia, the former capital city of the
Dacian Kingdom.
3 Cf. Pețan 2018a: 116–119.
120 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
According to the official description, these fortresses were built in the
1st centuries B.C. and A.D. under Dacian rule and show an unusual fusion of
military and religious architectural techniques and concepts from the classical
world and the late European Iron Age. The six defensive works, the nucleus
of the Dacian Kingdom, were conquered by the Romans at the beginning of
the 2nd century AD; their extensive and well-preserved remains stand in
spectacular natural surroundings and give a dramatic picture of a vigorous and
innovative civilization (UNESCO 2019b).
The property has been inscribed under criteria (ii), (iii) and (iv):
Criterion (ii): The Dacian fortresses represent the fusion of techniques and con-
cepts of military architecture from inside and outside the classical world to create
a unique style.
Criterion (iii): The Geto-Dacian kingdoms of the late 1st millennium BC attai-
ned an exceptionally high cultural and socio-economic level, and this is symboli-
zed by this group of fortresses.
Criterion (iv): The hill-fort and its evolved successor, the oppidum, were charac-
teristic of the Late Iron Age in Europe, and the Dacian fortresses are outstanding
examples of this type of defended site.
All six fortresses are located on hard to reach mountain tops (Figure 2).
After the Dacian kingdom was conquered by the Romans, the area was abandoned.
Along the following centuries, the fortresses and the settlements were covered by
thick fo rests and the access to them grew more and more difficult (Pețan 2018b:
424 sqq). At the same time, their isolation up in the mountains, in the middle of
century-old fo rests,
made for their pre-
servation over the
centuries.
The ruins of
these fortresses ca-
me to the atten tion
of the authorities at
the be ginning of the
19th century, after
the local villagers
discovered a series
of gold treasures
in the area of the
royal fortress. Until
the break of World
Figure 1. Location of the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
121
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
War I, several digging and investigation campaigns were organized, some by the
state, others at the initiative of some scholars, but all of them had to face huge
difficulties because of the isolated, hard to reach the location of the sites.
Systematic archaeological investigations started in the inter-war period
and they grew after 1950, but the promotion of the fortresses was modest in
the decades to come. Nevertheless, a series of dissemination works appeared in
this period and they made known to the public the archaeological discoveries,
raising the interest in these fortresses.
There were several attempts and endeavours to valorise the fortresses and
to develop tourism in the area, as early as the ’1950s. But the amplest action was
around 1980 when, on the background of communist ideology, the celebration
of “2050 years from the foundation of the first centralized and independent
Dacian state, under king Burebista” was organized. On this occasion, three out
of the six fortresses (Sarmizegetusa Regia, Costești–Cetățuie and Costești–
Blidaru) benefitted from conservation and restoration works, preceded by
the improvement of the road infrastructure. The interventions upon the
monuments have not always been appropriate, but the fame of the fortresses
increased after this date, as well as the number of tourists. It was then that car
access became possible to the first two of the fortresses mentioned, but only in
off-road vehicles and in certain periods of the year.
From the management point of view, between 1955 and 1989 the Dacian
fortresses made up a unique archaeological reserve. The communist regime
had completely wiped out archaeological poaching. After 1990, once the old
Monument Law was abrogated, the reserve was dissolved, and a decade of
legal vacuum followed, a period in which poaching took the proportions of
huge plunder. The reserve was not re-established through the new monument
Law of 2001, and the Dacian fortresses, although theoretically protected by
Figure 2. Bolii Hill, on top of which lies Bănia fortress (2017); Piatra Roșie Hill (photo: Dan Ște-
fan, 2015)
122 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
several new normative acts, continued to be abandoned by the central and
local authorities.
The fortresses area was left with no surveillance and the treasure hunters
stole hundreds of kilos of gold and silver pieces from the sites and took them
abroad (Musteață 2014: 72–74). Only 10% of these were recovered. Watching
over this “El Dorado” has always been a hard task, the reason being, again, their
location up in the mountains, but neither was shown any will in enforcing the
law, which, as early as 2001, stipulated that UNESCO sites are special objectives
and their protection is in charge of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. As shown
before, this has never happened.
The development of tourism was slow. Yet, it is true that after the fall of
communism, the number of tourists started to gradually increase, particularly
as several spiritual schools and trends that entered and f lourished in Romania,
were bringing their followers to ancient sacred places in order to practice rituals
of connection to the energies of these areas. Unfortunately, it is not far-fetched
to say that the Dacian fortresses have been “promoted” and became famous in
the ’1990s due to the poachers and yogis first and foremost.
The fact that the Dacian fortresses were inscribed on the UNESCO World
Heritage List in 1999 led to an increasing number of Romanian and foreign
tourists who visited them in the following years.
Today, 5 out of the 6 fortresses are in the same situation as in 1990: there
is no managing authority and they are not surveyed. The state of conservation
is very poor. They are being damaged by a series of both natural and human
factors. Most of them are still hard to reach and the number of tourists visiting
them does not exceed a few hundreds a year. There is no public transportation
to any of these fortresses. There is no a site museum or a visiting centre.
In the last six years, Sarmizegetusa Regia benefitted from a local
administration and the access road has been asphalted, which has doubled
the number of visitors (summing up to about 60.000 in 2017). The problem
of black archaeology has not been solved, as the area of Sarmizegetusa under
surveillance is restricted to the small tourist zone, while the area where the
treasures were stolen from continues to be unattended. It goes the same with
the other 5 fortresses.
Finally, it must be said that the stage of research on this site is unsatisfactory
(Table 3). Even in the case of the most important monument, Sarmizegetusa
Regia, where research started two centuries ago and has been carried out every
year since 1950, there are few scientific publications, there is no monography of
the site, and the dissemination publications are altogether absent.
123
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
The management issue
The management of the World Heritage Sites
The actual protection of a World Heritage Site is done through the management
of that particular site. It is only by appropriate management that the
Outstanding Universal Value of the site can be granted and passed over to the
next generations.
Professor Henry Cleere points out that the most important step ahead taken
by the Convention in the last decades is represented by “the establishment
of standards and criteria for the management, presentation and promotion of
World Heritage Sites” (Cleere 2006: xxii). The Advisory Bodies are extremely
rigorous and strict from this point of view, and quite a large number of sites that
applied for being included in the World Heritage List were deferred because
they lacked a sustainable management plan implemented.
Table 3. The situation of the six components of the UNESCO
site “The Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains”
No Name of the
component Research
Conservation/
restoration
works
Management Tourist info
State of
conser-
vation
1. Bănița 1961–1962 never never no panels very poor
2. Piatra Roșie 1949, 2004 never never one old panel very poor
3. Căpâlna 1965–1967,
1982–1983 never never one old panel very poor
4. Blidaru Many
campaigns 1983–1984 never one old panel poor
5. Cetățuie Many
campaigns 1980–1981 never one old panel poor
6. Sarmizegetusa
Regia
Every year
since 1950
1979–1980,
2004
2012 –
present
some new
panels,
audio-guides
poor
The main aim of the management of a World Heritage Site consists of
protecting Outstanding Universal Value. The Operational Guidelines state
that “To be deemed of Outstanding Universal Value, a property must also meet
the conditions of integrity and/or authenticity and must have an adequate
protection and management system to ensure its safeguarding” (UNESCO
2013a: 35; UNESCO 2017: §77–79). As a result, the absence of an appropriate
management system threatens the Outstanding Universal Value and the
property no longer meets the criteria for which it was included on the list.
124 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
The Operational Guidelines imposed, as early as 1983, the requirement for
an adequate and complete management plan, to be implemented for the natural
sites. The absence of such a plan was considered a threat for the site, which
would lead to its inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger (Cameron
and Rössler 2018: 4). In 1988, this obligation was introduced for the cultural
sites and the experts worked for several years to write the first guide meant to
help the site managers. It was issued in 1993 and signed by Bernard Feilden
and Jukka Jokilehto, and the second edition was published five years later
(Feilden and Jokilehto 1998). Feilden’s main idea was to create a management
committee for each World Heritage Site, made of an interdisciplinary team of
experts, including archaeologists, historians, architects, landscape architects
and engineers. Its declared aim was to separate the site management from the
political manipulations (Feilden and Jokilehto 1998: 49).
The successive editions of the Operational Guidelines brought important
developments and improvements to the concept of management, ending up in
2005 to encourage the direct participation in the management process of a wide
variety of communities, stakeholders, NGOs and other interested parties and
partners. In other words, at present, one cannot speak of an efficient management
system if the above-mentioned categories are excluded. A particularly important
role in the protection, management and conservation of sites is played by the
local communities, and this fundamental change of perspective is based on the
idea that the Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage Sites resides on
local values, experiences and efforts of conservation (Rössler 2012: 30).
The Operational Guidelines establish the main coordinates of the
management system (UNESCO 2017: §108–118). According to it, each
nominated property should have an appropriate management plan or other
documented management system which must specify how the Outstanding
Universal Value of a property should be preserved, preferably through
participatory means (para 108). The purpose of a management system is
to ensure the effective protection of the nominated property for present and
future generations (para 109). The management systems may vary according
to different cultural perspectives, the resources available and other factors
(para 110). The contents of the management plan (or the key element of the
management system) of a World Heritage Site, could be: (a) a thorough shared
understanding of the property by all stakeholders; (b) a cycle of planning,
implementation, monitoring, evaluation and feedback; (c) the involvement
of partners and stakeholders; (d) the allocation of necessary resources; (e)
capacity building; and (f) an accountable, transparent description of how the
management system functions (para 111).
125
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
The management of the World Heritage Sites represented a problem for
decades on end, particularly for states in regions of Africa, the Arab States,
Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean. In Europe and North
America, the percentage of properties with such problems has always been lower.
At the end of the first cycle of Periodic Reporting, in 2006, the results showed
that, for the four regions mentioned above, the group of factors “Management
and legal issues” came first within the factors that had a negative impact upon the
properties inscribed on the World Heritage List, and until 2009 these percentages
had kept growing (UNESCO 2010b: 19). The strategies used by UNESCO in
the following years brought rapid positive changes. Numerous guides, textbooks
and studies on the management of the World Heritage Sites were published and,
in order to train the site managers, training sessions, seminars and workshops at
the international, national and local level were organized and networks of site
managers were set up to enable the exchange of expertise, the promotion of good
practices and the success stories. In this process, the central role was played (and
it is still played) by the World Heritage Capacity Building Strategy (one of the
five Cs), which aims, among others, to strengthen the knowledge, abilities, skills
and behaviour of people with direct responsibilities for heritage conservation
and management (UNESCO 2013a: 50).
The results were visible after the second cycle of Periodic Reporting, closed
in 2015. In Europe and North America, the “Management and institutional
factors” group is now on the first place among the factors that influence positively
the properties, alongside the group “Social/cultural uses of heritage”. Very few
European states reported the management as a negative factor. The situation
has also considerably improved in the other regions of the world. In Africa,
this group of factors occupies the last place among the negative factors and it is
growing among the positive ones (UNESCO 2011: 30, 32). The same situation
is to be found in the region Asia and the Pacific, but only for the cultural sites,
and also in Latin America and the Caribbean (UNESCO 2013b: 29).
The management of the Dacian fortresses
The Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains entered the World Heritage
List in a period when there were already clear requirements related to the
management of the cultural sites, and the file was not accepted unless it
included a system of management. As results from the nomination file drawn
up by the Ministry of Culture and from the recommendation of the ICOMOS,
on the date of nomination, there were management plans in force for each of
the six component parts of the site (ROGOV 2019; ICOMOS 2019). The plans
must have been formal or they did not exist at all.
126 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
The establishment of a management mechanism was stalled mainly
by government Ordinance 47/2000, which did not include any form of
management for the serial sites but only for their components. The need for
common management was obvious though, and as a result, there were several
special legislative initiatives meant to set up a coordination structure for
this site. Unfortunately, most of the times they were hindered for political
reasons, because the politicians from Hunedoara District are keen on keeping
the control over the components of the site from their District, avoiding
subordination to any mechanism of coordination and control.
Another major cause is the lack of interest shown by the Ministry of Culture
for this site. The Ministry often came up with the justification that they cannot
do anything because of legal issues, related to the system of property over the
monuments and the lands on which the monuments lie. However, these issues
are not real; they are simply the result of a wrong view of the Ministry on the
management of this site.
On order that the Ministry of Culture can exercise its right of management
over these monuments, the real estate has to be included in the centralized
inventory of the goods that belong to the state’s public property. Yet, until
nowadays, they have not been inventoried, as the Ministry of Culture considers
that no documents are attesting the quality of public property of these
monuments (ROGOV 2014a).
According to the data published by the National Institute of Heritage,
within the Report of Monitoring the Dacian fortresses 2012, the situation of
the property regime of the six fortresses is presented as follows: two of the
fortresses are owned by the state, through a forestry directorate, one is on
private properties, one is the property of a village, one is on a piece of land
owned by the Village Hall, and one has no owner (INP 2019).
In reality, all the archaeological sites are the public property of the state,
according to the Law 213/1998, Annex 1, I, no. 27, whereas the lands they are
on, may have (and often do have) another owner. Even if, scientifically, one
cannot distinguish between the archaeological site and the land it lies on, the
two are distinct legal entities. It is true that the effective management cannot
be done other than by collaborating with all the landowners and stakeholders
in the area, but in order to have effective management, it is necessary that the
Ministry of Culture acknowledges the 6 fortresses as state property.
The existence of private ownership over the lands on which the sites
are located and in the buffer areas should not be an impediment in their
management. UNESCO insists on the involvement of the landowners as
partners in the protection and conservation of the sites (UNESCO 2017: §40).
127
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
A participatory approach to management is being promoted in the heritage
sector, given the perception of heritage as the shared property of communities
and a factor in ensuring the sustainability of those communities (UNESCO
2013a: 17). In spite of all these, the Romanian state goes on considering the
existence of private landowners as an impediment: recently, the President of
the Parliamentary Commission for the relation with UNESCO declared that
he wishes to expropriate them so that the Romanian state should remain the
sole owner, as only in this way the management of this site can be put into
practice (ROPARL 2019a). This statement is worrying and it shows a high-
level institutional ignorance of the basic concepts of the Convention as well
as its strategy of application, promoted by UNESCO in the last decades.
Moreover, nobody has tried so far to have a dialogue with these landowners
who, probably, would not object to a collaboration. The situation is also
complex because of the documentation required for the land use planning,
according to the Decision 738/2008.
The program of protection and management stipulated in Government
Decision 1268/2010 was applied in Hunedoara District, as late as three years
after the law was passed. In Alba District, where there is a component of this
site, it was applied a short while after it was passed. The only steps taken in both
Districts consisted in establishing the UNESCO Committees and appointing
the monument coordinators. However, everything remained at the formal level.
No management plans were drawn up and the site had no benefit from this
Decision. The coordinators took part in the second cycle of reporting to the
World Heritage Centre, as shown below.
In spite of the legal disputes mentioned above, in 2012, Hunedoara District
Council succeeded in obtaining from the Ministry of Culture the transfer
of the management rights over Sarmizegetusa Regia. At the same time, the
District administration had to face a very difficult task of establishing and
organizing a management department for this monument, while lacking any
kind of experience or models in this sense. Seven years later, this management
is still at the experimental stage and has to face complex situations. There is no
management plan and the staff of the management department is not trained
for that specific work. They don’t have an expert in heritage management or
tourism and the only archaeologist position that existed has been recently
closed.
Although some achievements are visible (the elaboration of visiting
regulations; the site is guarded; vegetation is periodically cleaned), the
site has been seriously affected on several occasions by the actions of this
administration (Pețan 2018a: 129–131). They have applied inadequate
128 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
methods in the cleaning and upkeeping the site, like burning vegetation on
large areas, resulting in the destruction of original blocks of the fortification
and deep soil impairing inside the fortification and the sacred zone (Figure 3).
Using inappropriate techniques in the woodcutting works carried out by the
site administration, like driving heavy machinery inside the site and making
the trees fall down over the walls, has seriously affected the monument
(Figure 4). Although the Ministry of Culture has allocated generous funds on
several occasions for topographical measurements, today there is still no plan
for the entire site to show the visitor all its components and routes and to help
it orientate. There are some old, partial and inaccurate plans, as for example
the fortification plan, that is very approximate, and on which the north is
indicated with an error of over 40 degrees.
The management of this monument is an elementary and a traditional
one. It is elementary in the sense that it only provides the basic services, such
as guarding, cleaning and upkeeping the site. Without a management plan,
there is neither vision nor any medium or long term strategy for the protection
and valorization of the site. There is no form of management of the tourism
that is on the rise and starts to have a negative impact on the monument. It is
traditional because this structure includes only the employees of the District
Council, even the decisions are made after having consulted a scientific council.
The civil society, the local community, the landowners, the local businesses as
well as other stakeholders are completely ignored by this administration, which,
at the same time, displays lack of transparency and openness to the public.
Politicians consider that this form of management is a “success model”, which
should also be applied to the other components in the District. Actually, the
District Council asked several times the Ministry of Culture to be granted the
right of managing the other four components, but they were refused every time.
The solution is, as it has been shown above, a unique management system for the
entire site, meant to coordinate the management of the six components and which
should be made of professionals or, at least, to keep out the political factor.
Focusing the efforts on a single component and the lack of a holistic
approach of the entire ensemble and of its relationships with the zone, both
historically and archaeologically, has been criticized by some researchers
(Opriș 2018: 36). In fact, before reaching such an approach, it is necessary
to, at least, realize the existence of a single World Heritage Site. In the field,
none of the six components carries the name of the UNESCO site, and nor
are the other components mentioned. The panels only signal the respective
component, with no reference to the ensemble it belongs to and without
offering any plan containing all of them. Therefore, the casual visitor cannot
129
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
understand the relationships between them, and neither the importance of the
ensemble. Under these circumstances, the communication of Outstanding
Universal Value of the site towards the public is highly deficient, as the value
of the entire site is not revealed at all and neither is the way in which each
component contributes to it.
The reporting to the World Heritage Centre
The serious situation of this site, which has lasted for two decades, should be
made known to the World Heritage Centre, through the reports sent by the
Romanian State, but this does not happen.
The Party States are supposed to send to the World Heritage Centre two
types of reports: 1. reports on the state of conservation of the monuments, every
time there is an intervention on the site or on its buffer zone, which could have
an impact upon the site integrity, originality or value; 2. periodical reporting
organized in reporting cycles, once every six years for all the sites inscribed on
the World Heritage List.
Despite numerous problematic interventions in the World Heritage Site and
its buffer area, the World Heritage Centre 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 of Sarmizegetusa Regia in 2011,
using bulldozers, without any authorization or archaeological surveillance,
which has led to the destruction of a sector of the site (Figure 5).
The periodical reporting represents a fundamental instrument thereby the
provisions of the Convention are being implemented. The States Parties are
compelled to take an active part in these reporting cycles, obligation resulting
from Article 29 of the Convention, corroborated with Chapter V of the
Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the Convention.
The aim of this reporting is to offer an assessment of the implementation
stage of the Convention by the States Parties, to facilitate the updating of
information on the sites inscribed and to record the eventual modifications of
the stage of their conservation. This process is supposed to lead to outlining
strategies for the improvement of the States Parties’ capacities and to the
development of more sustainable mechanisms for the conservation of the
properties belonging to the respective states. At the same time, on the base
of these reports, the World Heritage Centre aims at a global evaluation of its
portfolio. The periodical reporting allows the World Heritage Centre to assess
the actual condition of these sites and, when necessary, to decide on taking
specific steps to solve the recurrent problems and challenges. The site managers
are expected to consider this periodical reporting as a useful exercise in their
130 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
activity. Finally, the periodical reporting represents a regional cooperation
mechanism and an exchange of information and experience between the States
Parties, related to the implementation of the Convention.
Up to the present day, two similar cycled have been organized. On the first
cycle, which ended in 2005, Romania sent no data on the Dacian fortresses.
The second cycle ended in 2015, and Romania sent the report in 2014.
In the case of the Dacian fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains, the report
was drawn up by the two site managers from Alba and Hunedoara Districts and
it was approved by the Focal Point within the National Institute of Heritage.
The report mentions that in the local community and the foreign experts took
part in its elaboration (UNESCO 2019c), besides the central authority and the
site manager.
The report contains a lot of false data (Pețan 2016: 134–148). It shows the
absence of negative factors affecting the monuments and the presence of a large
number of positive factors, which are inexistent in reality. According to the
report, ten factors affect the property in a positive way and the only one affects
it negatively (but only potentially) and there are no current negative factors.
In fact, many of the positive factors reported are non-existent (housing, major
visitor accommodations, interpretative and visitation facilities, land conversion,
forestry, etc.), and the negative ones have been almost entirely omitted. They
should have reported the followings among those: the effects arising from the
use of transportation infrastructure, grazing of domesticated animals, forestry/
wood production, relative humidity, temperature, water (rain/ water table),
micro-organisms, illegal activities, deliberate destruction of heritage, invasive
terrestrial species, management activities, etc.
It is claimed that there have been seven funding sources for the conserva-
tion of these monuments in the previous five years, including international
and national donations, although there has been no intervention at all
for conservation in the last 20 years, except for some works in 2004 at
Sarmizegetusa Regia. It is also claimed that there are site museums, adequate
access routes to all the fortresses, visitor centres, information materials, 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 sometimes even dangerous, as for Bănița fortress, which does not benefit
from a path cut out on the slope, and consequently the tourist has to climb on
the rocks), and the museums and visitor centre do not exist.
The report’s conclusion is that the state of conservation of the property is
good, despite the obviousness of the opposite and of the progressive degradation
(Figures 6–11).
131
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
As a result, the World Heritage Centre has not been correctly informed
with respect to this site. The issues only surfaced in January 2019, when
Dacica Foundation informed the World Heritage Centre on the state of the six
fortresses. The Centre immediately notified the Romanian state, asking for a
detailed report on their state of conservation. In this way, a control process was
started, which will compel the Romanian state to take measures.
Non-compliance with the World Heritage Convention
The Convention on the protection of the Cultural World Heritage stipulates:
Art. 4. Each State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring
the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future
generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and
situated on its territory, belongs primarily to the State. It will do all it can to this end,
to the utmost of its own resources and, where appropriate, with any international
assistance and co-operation, in particular, financial, artistic, scientific and technical,
which it may be able to obtain.
Art. 5. To ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection,
conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage situated on its
territory, each State Party to this Convention shall endeavour, in so far as possible,
and as appropriate for each country:
a. to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage
a function in the life of the community and to integrate the protection of that heritage
into comprehensive planning programmes;
b. to set up within its territories, where such services do not exist, one or more
services for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and
natural heritage with appropriate staff and possessing the means to discharge their
functions;
c. to develop scientific and technical studies and research and to work out such
operating methods as will make the State capable of counteracting the dangers that
threaten its cultural or natural heritage;
d. to take the appropriate legal, scientific, technical, administrative and financial
measures necessary for the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and
rehabilitation of this heritage; and
e. to foster the establishment or development of national or regional centres for
training in the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural
heritage and to encourage scientific research in this field.
132 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
Figure 3. Vegetation burning at Sarmizegetusa Regia, affecting the monument (May 2013).
Left: Antique architectonic element burned by the site administration. Right: fireplace
by the western side of the fortification
Figure 4. Sarmizegetusa Regia, forestry works done by the site administration.
Top: tree felled over the fortification wall. Bottom: the entrance to the fortress impaired
by the use of heavy machinery (drone photos by Agent Green, February 2018)
133
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
Figure 5. Sarmizegetusa Regia, unauthorized bulldozer intervention, very close
to the antique wall and the main gate of the fortress. Photo: citynews.ro, 2011
Figure 6. Costești–Cetăuie Fortress. Top: the panel at the entrance to the fortress.
Bottom: cows grazing within the fortress and deteriorated protection systems
for the Dacian buildings (photo: Daniel Guă, 2016)
134 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
Figure 7. Bănia Fortress. Left: Entrance to the fortress. Right: the access path to the fortress
Figure 8. Piatra Roșie Fortress. Left: the only explanatory panel. Right: the main entrance to the
fortress
Figure 9. Sarmizegetusa Regia. Left: the pentagonal tower (2018). Right: partially ruined wall, at
the west gate (2016)
Figure 10. The impact of rains and landslides. Left: Blidaru Fortress (2017). Right: Sarmizegetusa
Regia (2018)
135
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
All the elements
presented in the pre-
vious chapters lead to
the conclusion that the
Romanian state barely
managed to comply
with a few of these pro-
visions, particularly in
the case of the natural
sites. In the case of the
Dacian fortresses of the
Orăștie Mountains, the
Convention was ignored altogether over the two decades since the inscription
of this cultural site on the World Heritage List.
What is even more surprising is the fact that, even at present, there is no analysis
of the implementation or compliance with this Convention in Romania. The issue
of implementation has been slightly touched in some recent studies (Boda 2018:
17–31; Musteață 2018), but the problem of non-compliance has not been raised
yet, except for the sporadic signalling of some irregularities in the protection and
management of the sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, with no reference
to the obligations assumed by the Romanian state towards UNESCO.
Even at the international level, such analyses are scarce (Goodwin 2002:
157–198). Edward J. Goodwin (2002: 180) is surprised by the absence of
academic studies on the role of the World Heritage Committee in granting
the observance of the Convention. Evan Hanmann explains this situation by
the fact that UNESCO and its institutions have been preoccupied with the
nomination of new sites as opposed to the question of compliance at existing
ones (Hamman 2019: 11–12).
Compliance with an international convention has several dimensions: there
is procedural compliance, which refers to the obligation of submitting reports,
and substantive compliance, which includes all the obligations (other than the
procedural ones) that relate to the practical and legislative implementation of the
convention (Hamman 2019: 4–5). In case of Romania, and particularly when
it comes to the site of the Dacian fortresses, one can talk of procedural non-
compliance, resulted from the fact that no report on the state of conservation
has ever been sent, no reports have been made during the first cycle of Periodic
Reporting, while during the second cycle, many fake data have been reported.
A substantive non-compliance must also be noticed; it refers to the actual non-
application of the provisions of the Convention for the effective protection of
the heritage.
Figure 11. Căpâlna Fortress
136 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
The causes of Romania’s non-compliance with the Convention
It is hard to identify the reasons why we are in this situation. Nevertheless, we
shall try to do this in the lines hereinafter, in hopes that thus, fast solutions are
going to be identified in order to re-balance the situation.
The cost-benefit calculation
What are the benefits of including a site in the World Heritage List? According
to Lynn Meskell, “For the signatories, having sites inscribed on the Convention’s
list garner international and national prestige, enables access to the World
Heritage Fund for monetary assistance, and brings the potential benefits of
heightened public awareness, tourism, and economic development” (Meskel
2013: 483). In the case of the Dacian fortresses, these benefits have not been
used, except maybe for the incipient development of tourism in the area of
some of the site components. Moreover, the site has been abandoned, prey to
destruction, while the reports have been filled with fake data.
Naturally, one may ask how come the state did not fear its reputation would
suffer if the Convention is infringed. The reputation theory states that the state
will comply if the reputational gain from compliance exceeds the increase in
non-reputational payoffs available if it violates its commitment (Guzman 2008:
75). Probably, according to the Romanian state institutions, the reputational
gain would have been too low, as compared to the effort the state should have
deployed in order to comply with the Convention. The Dacian fortresses are a
complex site, with numerous problems, which need a large volume of resources
in order to meet the requirements of UNESCO. Therefore, its abandonment was
preferred at the risk of a reputational loss. Andrew T. Guzman shows that “the
value of reputation will not be the same for every state or in every issue area. Some
states (or states in some situations) are in a better position to extract value from a
good reputation. These states might, for example, have many future opportunities
for cooperation that require them to make credible promises, or they may have
an ongoing relationship with a partner that makes a good reputation especially
valuable. Reputation is more valuable for such states than it is for those with fewer
or less valuable potential international engagements” (Guzman 2008: 75–76).
Other theorists claim that the states with a liberal democracy are more bent
towards complying with international conventions. Obviously, a question can be
raised (and this is also valid for Romania) – to what extent does the compliance
with international law itself help constitute the identity of a state as a law-abiding
state, and hence, as a ‘liberal’ state? (Burgstaller 2005: 179).
In short, non-compliance with the Convention could be based on a
calculation (not necessarily carefully and deliberately pondered) related to
137
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
the expenses that the Romanian state should have made, as opposed to the
benefits that they would have brought as a result of the proper protection and
management of the site. The effort of protecting the site would have been too
big and, consequently, the site has been abandoned: the state considered that a
stain on its international reputation “costs” less.
The low level of awareness and the lack
of heritage education
Yet, it would be far-fetched to consider the non-compliance with the Convention
deliberate to a high extent. It is simply a matter of poor education of the entire
society, which is hardly aware of the value of this heritage and, politically and
institutionally, the incapacity to realize how serious the infringement of the
Convention is. It is more a matter of lack of information and carelessness than a
deliberate ill-will.
It is true that the authorities have been informed about the serious situation
of this site. For example, a substantiation study, elaborated in 2014 in view of
implementing Romania’s Strategy of Territorial Development, ordered by the
Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, points out in
the report on the protection of historic monuments and built heritage that the
system of monitoring, management and protection of the monuments belonging
to the World Heritage List from Romania is not functional and that the
protection of the Dacian fortresses raises the most difficult problems because
of the large area, the lack of unitary management and the conflicts between the
protection of the archaeological heritage and the natural one (ROGOV 2014b).
There have been debates at the Ministry of Culture, meant to find solutions for
this World Heritage Site. As shown before, there were even legislative initiatives
trying to find a way out of this standstill, but they failed. Anyway, these were
weak and sporadic attempts. What was really missing and is still missing is a
deep knowledge of the Convention and of the documentation derived from it,
at the level of the deciding bodies, as well as a real interest for the problem of
heritage and particularly the UNESCO sites.
In the situation in which the state institutions failed to perform their legal
obligations, the large public, mass media, civil society and experts should
have put pressure on them. But this did not happen. In spite of the interest
and attachment manifested by the general public for the Dacian history and
civilization and implicitly for its material heritage, they have not been informed
on the status of this site. As shown before, there is no panel with the real name
of the site, the position of the six components, their role in the ensemble and its
value, let aside historic information, interpretations or virtual reconstructions.
138 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
The data on the existing panels are old, often inaccurate and very scarce.
Therefore, the large public has no real source of information that could raise
their awareness about the value of the site.
Education for heritage is poor in Romania at all levels (Boda 2018: 29).
School children and high school students benefit from sporadic activities related
to heritage, only when they have the chance of being taught by passionate
and responsible teachers or if they have in their hometown active museums,
but there is no strategy to support the education of the young generation in
the sense of valorising this heritage. In some universities, there are master
programs dedicated to cultural heritage, but they are new programs, some at an
experimental stage, which has not produced generations of experts, capable of
bringing some changes.
The lack of this kind of education is ref lected by the Eurostat statistics,
showing that a dramatic percentage, – 80.6%, of Romanians aged between
25 and 64, have not visited any cultural site (historical monument, museum,
art gallery or an archaeological site) within one year, which places Romania
on the first place in Europe in 2011 (EUROSTAT 2019). The percentage may
have decreased in the meantime (there are no more recent statistics), but the
reality probably did not change too much.
There is also a great need of programs meant to promote within the
general public of Romania’s world heritage and to disseminate it by all means
(publications, TV documentaries, movies, Internet). Obviously, all the above-
mentioned suppose financial efforts, which the state has not been willing to
assume until the present day.
A study signed by Elena Cozma shows the results of a Romanian mass-
media monitoring project in the period of January 2017 – November 2018 in
order to bring forth the way in which the topic of UNESCO sites is reflected
in the press (Cozma 2018: 196–205). The topics under consideration were:
promotion, funding / rehabilitation, political disputes / conflictual situations,
theft / poaching, discovery / research, destruction, wreckage / negligence. The
results of the survey show that the general interest of the press for this subject
is low. The national press prefers conflictual subjects (thefts, poaching), while
the local press is highly politicized and biased. The conclusions of the survey
are clear and convincingly illustrate the level of public awareness, but also that
of the political class, concerning the issues related to the world heritage: “there
is a low interest not only in the mass media, social media, television or radio
but also in the political discourse of the authorities in whose custody are these
monuments are” (Cozma 2018: 205).
139
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
The weak influence of the NGOs
Theoretically, loss of reputation should be a determining factor for states to
comply with international conventions. Yet, Abram and Antonia Handler
Chayes show that the fear of this is not enough for a state to observe a
convention and the „enforcement model” should be replaced by a „managerial
model”. The latter involves a permanent interaction between parties, with
the aim of rebalancing the advantages that were at the base of signing the
convention. Among the instruments used by such active management, we can
mention transparency, report checking and monitoring, while an important role
is played by the independent surveys and the civil society (Chayes and Handler
Chayes 1995: 109–111).
This model was criticized by Markus Burgstaller, as it depends on procedural
fairness and relies on the work undertaken by NGOs (Burgstaller 2005: 149–
150). The case of the Dacian fortresses confirms Brugstaller’s criticism: the
Romanian state did not show procedural fairness, and the activity of NGOs is
still weak in this country. Therefore, for UNESCO there was no way to find
out what is going with this site. As previously mentioned, the truth came out
only later and it is only from now on that one could consider the application of
a managerial model, i.e. verified reports, international control and monitoring,
permanent interaction and dialogue between the two parties until the balance
is re-established.
The role of NGOs in complying with a convention by the states parties is
stressed by several authors. NGOs have parallel and complementary functions
and they often provide the basic evaluation and assessment of party performance
that is the core of the compliance process. Where there is non-compliance, they
are the key to public exposure, shaming, and popular response (Chayes and
Handler Chayes 1995: 251–253). They play a central role as monitoring and
law-enforcement agents (Cecchi 2015: 461).
In Romania, the NGOs that strive for natural sites have a long tradition
and they have obtained good results. In the field of cultural heritage, they
are scarce and their activity is less vigorous in important directions such as
advocacy and watching. In the particular case of the Dacian fortresses, Dacica
Foundation has been, for several years, drawing the attention upon the issues
and irregularities the site is facing, but without any result. In exchange, it has
become the target of press attacks and discrediting campaigns. This situation
determined the organization to appeal to international support. Its joining
the international NGO network World Heritage Watch made it possible to
communicate with the World Heritage Centre and, also, to draw the support
of the international civil society for the cause of the Dacian fortresses. As
140 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
shown before, in January 2019 the Foundation informed the World Heritage
Centre about the real situation of this site, and this triggered the process of
reactive monitoring by UNESCO.
It should also be mentioned that, along seven years of activity, the
Administration of the site Sarmizegetusa Regia has never invited any stakeholder
or NGO to participate in decision making related to the management of this site
and neither has it established an advisory board, as it would have been natural.
In this case, the attitude of the institutions towards the NGOs is hostile.
Where are the experts?
The generally passive attitude of the experts has also contributed to the
actual situation of this site. The scientific community preferred to turn a
blind eye to such a complex situation. There were also situations when certain
experts were involved in actions that affected the site or contributed to the
covering of some irregularities. The fire set at Sarmizegetusa Regia, which
lead to the destruction of some antique architectural elements and of the soil,
was approved and surveyed by an archaeologist. The same archaeologist also
surveyed the forestry works on the site, which resulted in serious damage. He
is also responsible for the report abounding in fake data, sent to the World
Heritage Centre, approved by a world heritage expert of the National Institute
of Heritage. Although all these irregularities have been signalled by the civil
society, nobody was sanctioned. On the contrary, some experts, such as the
scientific coordinator of the archaeological site or the president of the National
Commission of Archaeology tried to cover up these facts, claiming that the
damage is insignificant and accusing the NGOs of exaggeration.
As to the situation of the other five components of the site, which are
almost completely abandoned, the scientific community never took a firm
stand. The existence of a research team called “The Archaeological Site The
Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains” did not improve the situation, as
the members of this group focused on the archaeological research on one or
two of the site components, paying almost no attention to the catastrophic
situation they are in for their management. Had they (and the institutions
they represent) taken a firm stand and made an active lobby before the
Ministry of Culture, it could have broken this deadlock. It is still they who
are responsible for the lack of site promotion materials, which made for the
poor information of the general public about it. The Romanian Academy kept
itself away from this issue.
It is only recently that some researchers started launching warnings (Opriș
2018: 32–40; Musteață 2018; Bârcă 2018; Ciută 2018), particularly due to
141
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
the impulse given by a research project dedicated to the UNESCO sites from
Romania, coordinated by Sergiu Musteață.4 The project, still running, has the
potential of triggering a real shock wave among researchers and the institutions
in charge.
The lack of UNESCO compliance control
Finally, the lack of UNESCO real control of Convention compliance, based on
the good faith of the States Parties and self-reporting, must also be mentioned
among the causes. Jean Musitelli states that UNESCO has no power to
police or to sanction and its authority is purely moral (Musitelli 2002: 325).
According to him, a revision of the Convention would be of interest to make
the obligations of the text more compelling (Musitelli 2002: 332).
There has been a lot of talk about the lack of power of the Convention in its
relation with the states, which can be neither compelled nor really sanctioned.
For this reason, Evan Hamann calls the Convention „a toothless tiger”, and
Clémentine Bories “a colossus with feet of clay” (Bories 2010). The latter claims
that the Convention is not really efficient and she also pleads for its revision:
“It is only at the price of a revision that reinforces its judicially compelling
character and makes clear the responsibilities of each and every actor involved
in its implementation, that it can become fully effective and the protection of
the world heritage will be really efficient” (Bories 2010: 165).
Although some commentators state that World Heritage Convention does
not establish non-compliance procedures (NCPs) (Rose et al., 2007: 37–38),
others are of the opinion that reactive monitoring and a yearly examination of
the conservation reports by the World Heritage Committee can constitute a
highly proactive NCP (Goodwin 2002: 181–182; Hamman 2019: 12).
Finally, the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger
and its delisting from the World Heritage List can represent forms of coercion
and sanction, although the latter is applied extremely rarely (only two cases
since 1972 until the present day).
Effects and consequences of non-compliance
We have already mentioned the fact that Romania’s reputation will probably
be affected by the non-compliance with this Convention. This might have an
impact in the future upon the fate of other Romanian sites for which endeavours
are being made in order to be inscribed on the World Heritage List. However,
4 Preservation by development of sustainable strategies for a better protection of the UNESCO World
Heritage Sites from Romania, CNCS-UEFISCDI project PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2016-0737 no.
52/2017. Website: archaeoheritage.ro (accessed on March 13, 2019).
142 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
before listing other sites, Romania has to prove that it cares for the sites already
listed and that it is a trustworthy partner of the Convention.
A direct outcome of having offered fake data to the World Heritage Centre is
the distortion of the regional results of the reporting cycle. Within the exercise
of periodical reporting, the states are grouped in five regions (the Arab States,
Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe and
North America), each of them having several sub-regions. In Europe, Romania
belongs to the sub-region Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe (CESEE).
The data reported by Romania have been used in the regional report and in the
elaboration of the action plan for this region.
Although the regional report takes into consideration the States Parties,
not the properties, a single fake answer has an impact upon the position of
the respective state in the statistics. For instance, to the question “Is there
a planned programme of research at the property which is directed towards
management needs and / or improving understanding of OUV?”, for 6
out of the 7 World Heritage Sites from Romania the answer was “There is
considerable research but it is not directed towards management needs and /
or improving understanding of OUV” and only for the Dacian fortresses the
answer was: “There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of research,
which is relevant to management needs and / or improving understanding of
OUV”. This answer, obviously fake, ranked Romania very high in this category:
“Across Europe, only three countries (Germany, Malta, and Romania) said
that they have a comprehensive research programme specifically addressing
the World Heritage. Seventy per cent of the State Parties said that there was
some research, and the remainder (11) said there was none specifically related
to the World Heritage” (UNESCO 2016: 40).
Due to the fake data offered, Romania ranks very high at several categories
in the regional report. For instance, it is on the first place in Europe in the
World Heritage Sites promotion through various media channels (publications,
films/TV, media campaigns, internet etc.), although, in reality, such promotion
actions are almost inexistent and the level of awareness of the importance of the
World Heritage in Romania is very low (UNESCO 2016: 45). Further examples
can easily be given.
What is next?
It is hard to identify a similar or a preceding situation in order to envisage the
outcome. At present, there are some sites that have management issues, but
the situation of the Dacian fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains is probably
unparalleled. In Europe, it is certain that there are no cases of such severity, and
even in the rest of the world, it would be difficult to find a similar case. Simon
143
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
Makuzava claims there are a few sites in Africa and a few others in other parts
of the world that have no management plans, but they are being monitored
(Makuzava 2018: xxi). The Dacian fortresses not only lack a management
system, management plans, a real monitoring, their situation is not accurately
reported, – but they are flatly absolutely abandoned.
Clémentine Bories rightly notices that those who drafted the Convention
did not consider at all the situation in which a party state may not want to
comply with its international obligations (Bories 2010: 160). However, as
shown before, the degree of deliberate infringement of the Convention is
probably not so high in this case. It is more likely a case of incapacity, and in a
situation like this, the state may benefit from technical and financial assistance
if it is open for collaboration and shows good intentions.
In concrete terms, it is expected that after the report UNESCO asked for
is received, they will send a mission to the site and, at the next Session of the
World Heritage Committee, a decision will be made about this site. In our
opinion, the site meets the criteria for being included in the List of World
Heritage in Danger. The Operational Guidelines state these criteria and, in
the case of a cultural site, “lack of conservation policy” is enough for the site
to be included on this list (UNESCO 2017: §179). Anna Leask shows that the
lack of efficient management can even lead to the removal of the site from the
list: “Once designated, the State Party accepts responsibility for the effective
management of the site and commits to adopting Operational Guidelines for
the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention and the system of reactive
and periodic reporting set in place by UNESCO. If it fails to do this effectively
then the treat of removal from the World Heritage List is present, though it has
not, to date, been exercised” (Leask 2006: 7). A potential listing of the Dacian
fortresses as World Heritage in Danger should not be regarded as a sanction
but as a help. The sites from this list are helped to draw up and implement an
action plan meant to bring them to the level required by UNESCO. Only if the
state makes no efforts to implement the action plan, can the site can end up
being delisted. The process takes several years, so the Romanian state will have
enough time to take action.
As a matter of fact, there is already a visible process of “awakening”, activated
in the last few years. The National Institute of Heritage, which includes the Focal
Point regarding the World Heritage in Romania, has promised a new approach
in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (INP 2018). Their
efforts are visible, but the results are yet to come, be it for legislative reasons,
or for lack of financial or human resources. The Institute is also preparing a
comprehensive program of conservation and valorising the site Sarmizegetusa
144 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
Regia, whose costs are estimated at 60 million euros, but before such a project
is put into practice, a management plan and a medium and long term strategy
have to be elaborated.
The action taken by Dacica Foundation and World Heritage Watch by
the World Heritage Centre has set the Romanian authorities in motion. Only
two weeks after this intervention, the President of the permanent common
Commission for the relation with UNESCO of the Chamber of Representatives
and the Senate admitted the existence of a claim made by UNESCO towards
the Romanian state for the detailed reporting of the state of conservation of the
site “The Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains”. He also acknowledged
that the fortresses have been abandoned for two decades and that the reports
were fake, and announced that the Commission he is chairing has declared
“The salvation of the Dacian fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains, a priority”
(ROPARL 2019b). All of these are signs that the institutions of the state have
understood the seriousness of the situation and will endeavour to take all the
necessary steps towards correcting it.
Conclusions and perspectives
It can be said that almost for three decades after the Convention was signed,
its implementation is still incomplete in Romania. There is need for an
improvement of the legal framework and for its periodical adjustment to the
new directions and strategies recommended by UNESCO, applicable not only
to the sites inscribed on the World Heritage List and on the Tentative List, but
also to the sites that do not enjoy this status.
As to the compliance with the Convention, it is effective only in the case of
the natural sites, partial in some cultural sites, and almost absent in the case of
the site The Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains. The above analysis of
the causes that lead to this non-compliance may contribute to the identification
of solutions meant to rebalance the situation.
The main direction to be followed is the adoption of some appropriate
heritage policies. They should be based on leadership (the identification of
good practice models and their adjustment to the specificity of the Romanian
sites), participatory approach (the involvement of the stakeholders in the
protection and management of the UNESCO site, including the local
community and the civil society), sustainability (granting a sustainable
future for heritage assets), communication (transparency and permanent
communication), promotion, awareness building and education for heritage
(to ensure greater understanding of the value of heritage). We are convinced
that all these will be achieved in the years to come.
145
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
References
Marie-Theres, A. (2012). “Perspectives of World Heritage: towards future-oriented
strategies with the five ‘Cs’.” In: M.-T. Albert, M. Richon, M. J. Viñals and A.
Witcomb (eds), Community development through World Heritage, 32–38. World
Heritage Papers, World Heritage Centre, UNESCO.
Marie-Theres, A. and B. Ringbeck (2015). 40 Years World Heritage Convention. Berlin–
Boston.
Bârcă, V. (2018). “Câteva observații privind administrarea cetăților dacice din munții
Orăștiei înscrise în Lista Patrimoniului Mondial UNESCO / A few notes on the
management of the Dacian fortresses of the Orăștiei Mountains on the list on
UNESCO world heritage sites.” Plural. History. Culture. Society 6/2: 78 –111.
Boda, G. (2018). “The Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural
and Natural Heritage (Paris, 1972) and Romania.” Plural. History. Culture. Society
6/2: 17–31.
Bories, C. (2010). “La convention du patrimoine mondial à l’aube de son 40e
anniversaire : un colosse aux pieds d’argile?”. Annuaire français de droit international
56: 139–165.
Burgstaller, M. (2005). Theories of Compliance with International Law. Leiden–
Boston.
Cameron, C. and M. Rössler (2018). “Introduction of Management Planning for
Cultural World Heritage Sites.” In: S. Makuvaza (ed.), Aspects of Management
Planning for Cultural World Heritage Sites. Principles, Approaches and Practices,
3–13. Cham.
Cecchi, A. (2015). “Non-State Actors and Cultural Heritage: Friends or Foes?” Anuario
de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid 19: 457–479.
Chayes, A. and A. Handler Chayes (1995). The New Sovereignty. Compliance with
International Regulatory Agreements. London.
Ciută, M. (2018). “Cetatea dacică de la Căpâlna (com. Săsciori, jud. Alba). După 19
ani… UNESCO / The Dacian Fortress Căpâlna (Săsciori Village, Alba District).
After 19 years as … UNESCO.” Plural. History. Culture. Society 6/2: 150–169.
Cleere, H. (2006). “Foreword”. In: A. Leask and A. Fyall (eds), Managing World
Heritage Sites, xxi–xxii. Oxford.
Cozma, E. (2018). “Monitorizarea mass mediei privind patrimoniul mondial din
România. Considerații preliminare / Mass Media monitoring of the World
Heritage Sites in Romania. Preliminary considerations”. Plural. History. Culture.
Society. 6/2: 196–205.
Engels, B., B. Ohnesorge and A. Burmester (eds) (2009). Nominations and Management
of Serial Natural World Heritage Properties. Present Situation, Challenges and
Opportunities. Bonn: IUCN.
EUROSTAT (2019) = European Statistical Office – Eurostat. Database. Online:
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/culture/data/database (accessed on March 13, 2019).
Feilden, M.B. and J. Jokilehto (1998). Management Guidelines for World Heritage
Cultural Sites. Rome: ICCROM.
146 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
Goodwin, E.J. (2002). “The World Heritage Convention, the Environment, and
Compliance”. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy
20/2: 157–198.
Guzman, A.T. How International Law Works. A Rational Choice Theory. Oxford.
Hamman, E. (2019). “A toothless tiger? Issues of non-compliance and the World
Heritage Convention”. In: IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Colloqium, 20–
24 June 2016. Oslo, unpublished. Online: eprints.qut.edu.au/120329/ (accessed
on February 21, 2019).
ICOMOS (2019) = ICOMOS. Dacian Fortresses (Romania). No 906. Online: whc.
unesco.org/document/154564 (accessed on February 23, 2019).
INP (2018) = National Institute of Heritage. World Heritage in Romania. Bucharest:
Patrimonia.
INP (2019) = National Institute of Heritage. Raport de monitorizare a Cetăților Dacice din
Munții Orăștiei. Online: patrimoniu.ro/monumente-istorice/lista-patrimoniului-
mondial-unesco/9-monumente-istorice/34-raport-de-monitorizare-a-cetatilor-
dacice-din-muntii-orastiei (accessed on March 13, 2019).
Jakobson, H.K. and E. Brown Weiss. “A framework for analysis”. In: E. Brown Weiss
and H.K. Jakobson (eds), Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with
International Environmental Accords, 1–18. MIT.
Leask, A. (2006). “World Heritage Site designation.” In: A. Leask and A. Fyall (eds),
Managing World Heritage Sites, 5–19. Oxford.
Makuvaza, S. (2018). “Introduction.” In: S. Makuvaza (ed.), Aspects of Management
Planning for Cultural World Heritage Sites. Principles, Approaches and Practices, xvi–
xxiii. Cham.
Meskell, L. (2013). “UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention at 40: Challenging the
Economic and Political Order of International Heritage Conservation.” Current
Anthropology 54/4: 483–494.
Musitelli, J. (2002). “World Heritage, between Universalism and Globalization.”
International Journal of Cultural Property 11/2: 323–336.
Musteață, S. (2014). “Archaeological heritage crimes in Romania and Moldova: a
comparative view”. In: L. Grove and S. Thomas (eds), Heritage Crime: Progress,
Prospects and Prevention, 71–80. Palgrave Macmillan.
Musteață, S. (2018). “Evaluarea și monitorizarea siturilor înscrise în Lista patrimoniului
mondial din România / Evaluation and monitoring of the World Heritage Sites in
Romania”. Plural. History. Culture. Society 6/2: 63–77.
Opriș, I. (2018). “Înscrierea siturilor românești în Lista patrimoniului mondial /
Inscription of the Romanian sites in the World Heritage List”. Plural. History.
Culture. Society 6/2: 32–40.
Pețan, A. (2016). Evaluare a Raportării Periodice către World Heritage Centre (Periodic
Reporting – Second Cycle) cu privire la Cetățile Dacice din Munții Orăștiei [Evaluation
of Periodic Reporting – Second Cycle regarding the Dacian fortresses of the Orăștie
Mountains]. A lun, 2016.
147
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
Pețan, A. (2018a). “Cetățile dacice din Munții Orăștiei. Probleme actuale și
perspective / The Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains. Current issues
and perspectives.” Plural. History. Culture. Society 6/2: 112–149.
Pețan, A. (2018b). Sarmizegetusa Regia 1. Redescoperirea cetății [Sarmizegetusa Regia.
1. Rediscovery of the fortress]. Alun.
Rössler, M. “Partners in site management. A shift in focus: heritage and community
involvement”. In: M.-T. Albert, M. Richon, M. J. Viñals and A. Witcomb (eds),
Community development through World Heritage, 27–31. World Heritage Papers,
World Heritage Centre, UNESCO.
ROGOV (2014 a) = Romanian Government, Ministry of Culture, Minister’s Cabinet.
Doc. 5392/18.11.2014.
ROGOV (2014b) = Romanian Government, Ministry of Regional Development and
Public Administration. Strategia de Dezvoltare Teritorială a României [Romania’s
Territorial Development Strategy], Studiul 20. Protecția Monumentelor Istorice și a
Patrimoniului Construit. Bucharest.
ROGOV (2019) = Romanian Government, Ministry of Culture. Les fortresses daces
des Monts d’Orastie. Online: whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/906.pdf
(accessed on February 23, 2019).
ROPARL (2019a) = Romanian Parliament. UNESCO Parliamentary Commission.
Video press release, 06.02.2019. Online: ww w.facebook.com/100008269268672/v
ideos/2282100762075544/?id=100008269268672 (accessed on March 17, 2019).
ROPARL (2019b) = Romanian Parliament. The Chamber of Deputies. Comunicat de
presă primit de la Comisia permanentă comună a Camerei Deputaților și Senatului
pentru relația cu UNESCO, 06.02.2019. Online: www.cdep.ro/relatii_publice/
site2015.text_presa?pid=17463 (accessed on March 17, 2019).
Rose, G., L. Kurukulasuriya, A. Perera and M. Krebs (2007). Compliance Mechanisms
under Selected Multilateral Environmental Agreements. U N EP.
UNESCO (2010a) = UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Report on serial nominations
and properties. WHC-10/34.COM/9B. Paris.
UNESCO (2010b) = UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Reflection on the Trends of the
State of Conservation. WHC-10/34.COM/7C. Paris.
UNESCO (2011) = UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Report on the Second Cycle of
Periodic Reporting in the Africa region. WHC-11/35.COM/10A. Paris.
UNESCO (2012) = UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Final report on the results of the
second cycle of the Periodic Reporting exercise for Asia and the Pacific. WHC-12/36
COM/10A. Paris.
UNESCO (2013a) = UNESCO / ICCROM / ICOMOS / IUCN. Managing Cultural
World Heritage. World Heritage Resource Manual. Paris.
UNESCO (2013b) = UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Final Report on the results
of the second cycle of the Periodic Reporting Exercise for Latin American and the
Caribbean. WHC-13/37 COM/10A. Paris.
148 PLURAL Vol. 8, no. 1, 2020
UNESCO (2016) = UNESCO World Heritage Centre. “Understanding World
Heritage in Europe and North America. Final Report on the Second Cycle of
Periodic Reporting 2012–2015”. In: World Heritage Reports 43. Paris.
UNESCO (2017) = UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris.
UNESCO (2018) = UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Periodic Reporting. A Handbook
for Site Managers. The World Heritage Convention. Third Cycle of Periodic Reporting ,
2018–2024. Paris.
UNESCO (2019a) = UNESCO World Heritage Centre. World Heritage List: Romania.
Online: whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/ro (accessed on March 13, 2019).
UNESCO (2019b) = UNESCO World Heritage Centre. World Heritage List: Dacian
Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains. Online: whc.unesco.org/en/list/906 (accessed
March 13, 2019).
UNESCO (2019c) = UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Periodic Report – Second
Cycle, Section II – Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains. Online: whc.
unesco.org/archive/periodicreporting/EUR/cycle02/section2/groupb/906.pdf
(accessed on March 17, 2019).
von Droste, B. (2011). “The concept of outstanding universal value and its application:
from the seven wonders of the ancient world to the 1,000 world heritage places
today”. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development 1/1:
26–41.
Convenia privind patrimoniul mondial i România. Studiu
de caz: Cetile dacice din Munii Ortie
Rezumat
România a semnat Convenția privind patrimoniul mondial în 1990. Proce-
sul său de implementare a fost desfășurat de-a lungul a două decenii, însă
cadrul legal rezultat nu oferă în prezent protecția și gestionarea corespun-
zătoare a siturilor înscrise în Lista patrimoniului mondial. Mai mult, chiar
dacă s-au luat măsuri pentru punerea în aplicare a Convenției, respectarea
acesteia este departe de a fi o realitate. Acest studiu evidențiază faptul că,
în cazul sitului de patrimoniu mondial serial „Cetățile dacice din Munții
Orăștie”, există o dublă nerespectare a Convenției. În primul rând, există o
nerespectare substanțială, care rezultă din nerespectarea aproape completă
a site-ului: în ultimii 20 de ani, nu a existat un sistem de management și 5
din cele 6 părți componente ale acestuia au fost abandonate. În al doilea
rând, există o nerespectare procedurală, rezultată din raportarea falsă că-
tre Centrul Patrimoniului Mondial, precum și din omiterea unor rapoarte.
Situația reală a apărut recent, din cauza intervenției societății civile, iar Cen-
trul Patrimoniului Mondial a declanșat procesul de monitorizare reactivă a
149
PLURAL
The World Heritage Convention and Romania.
Case Study: the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains
acestui sit. În același timp, cauzele posibile ale acestei neconformități au fost
analizate în vederea identificării unor soluții urgente menite să restabileas-
că echilibrul în raport cu Convenția. Principalele direcții de acțiune propu-
se sunt îmbunătățirea cadrului legal și adoptarea de politici de patrimoniu
adecvate.
Cuvinte cheie: Convenția privind patrimoniul mondial, România, Cetățile da-
cice din Munții Orăștie, implementare, respectare
Aurora Pean, Study Centre of Dacica Foundation,
e-mail: aurora.petan@dacica.ro
