Minutes of Meeting of Tentative List Expert Advisory Group – 16 January 2009.
Attendance:
Lord Donald Hankey (Chair) / President ICOMOS UKAnne Costello / DoEHLG – Heritage Policy
Dermot Burke / OPW
Brian Lucas / DoEHLG – Heritage Policy
Dr. Peter Cox / Vice-President ICOMOS Ireland
Dr. Pauline Garvey / NUI Maynooth
Dr. Rebecca Jeffrey / DoEHLG - NPWS
Charles Stanley-Smith / An Taisce
Dr. Claire Cave / UCD
Martin Colreavy / DoEHLG – Chief Architect
Professor Adrian Phillips / IUCN
Eugene Keane / OPW
Professor George Eogan / Archaeologist (Retired)
Dr. Brendan Dunford / Heritage Council
Ray Connell / DoEHLG – Heritage Policy
Brian K Duffy / DoEHLG – Chief Archaeologist
Joe Crockett / CCMA
Willie Cumming / DoEHLG – Senior Architect
Apologies: Dr. Jukka Jokelihto, UNESCO Expert; Mr. Ciaran O’Keeffe, DoEHLG (National Parks and Wildlife Service);
Agenda Item 1 – Adoption of Minutes of Meeting of 1 December 2008:
The Minutes were adopted with some minor amendments and clarifications.
Agenda Item 2 – Opening Address by Lord Hankey, (Chair):
Referring to the Tentative List Expert Advisory Group’s Terms of Reference the Chair indicated that he had some concerns as to whether we will be in a position to actually achieve the output required of us as set out in the Terms of Reference. He indicated that there is a very real challenge to examine the gaps in the World Heritage List and explore themes such as Round Towers, Forts and Monastic Settlements within the available timeframes and with available resources. There is also a need he said to develop an approach to presenting the information. The Chair referred the Group to the Format Document of 14th November as the most appropriate method of providing the information required in a transparent manner and which facilitates an equal and fair assessment of sites. The research studies are important not just from the perspective of the Tentative List but also to support the development of government policy for the conservation and management of heritage sites. Cultural Tourism and promoting awareness can also be developed which is very important for people’s cultural identity. The Chair referred to the need for an injection of funding for the Public Consultation Phase. Brian Lucas responded that the funding issues might be taken under Agenda Item 6.
The Chair invited Mr. Adrian Phillips to present his paper on the maturation of the Convention and putting Ireland’s 1992 Tentative List into context.
The main points of his Paper can be summarised as follows:-
· It is unwise to proceed with sites where management issues remain unresolved.
· Integrity and Authenticity must be substantiated to a very significant degree.
· The Global Strategy indications are that UNESCO World Heritage Committee prefer World Heritage cultural sites to be from places other than Europe
· Consultation is to take place with local communities before nomination so that management and planning strategies to protect OUV can be defined in the nomination process and agreed with the Local Government.
The Chair thanked Mr. Phillips for this very useful Paper and asked that Group Members, working up site reports, take this document on board in their research and deliberations.
Agenda Item 3 - Anthropological Perspective - Dr. Pauline Garvey
The Chair called on Dr. Garvey to present her Paper on the Anthropological Perspective. Dr. Garvey began by saying her Paper would probably raise questions rather than provide the answers. Her paper considers how people perceive/look at things at present. She referred to the way the Rock of Cashel, even today, is still used to flag the nation in advertising e.g. how it is used as a signpost of where we are located. There is a strong association of kinship through land or the locality where people are from. She remarked on the way we in Ireland use the locality to make connections. History is conceived through Geography. Our literary tradition has given it that legitimacy. She then posed the question how does this intersect with Architecture.
Insofar as the Blaskets are concerned was the extreme poverty there the origin of the folklore? Our folk culture is indeed a strong reminder of the poverty of the past. Dr. Garvey also referred to Ireland as playing a role in reviving and creating a Celtic Europe. Indeed the EU tries to promote and create a commonality of heritage. Are our sites responses to religion and nationalism, and are they political symbols eg Gaelic revivals in the 1900’s? the Round Towers were mentioned in speeches and advertising as symbols of nationhood. It’s a way of packaging the past. This can be seen from the debate today on Tara and the M3 Motorway. This is a hot issue not just locally but internationally, and is discussed around the world by a large number of Tara supporters. Dr. Garvey concluded by suggesting that Landscapes are not so much a backdrop to the stuff of life, but the precursor of it.
The Chair asked that some thought be given to considering intangibles. In interpreting and presenting sites they have to be expressed. Sites are the medium for the message about the socio-political and cultural interpretation of the past and give a perspective on time and the present. It is vital to get the human aspect of the message across. It was also suggested that Geography and Climate has had a significant influence on the way people developed in Ireland. Our isolated location both influenced and protected us. Located on the fringes of Western Europe we have been less troubled by events on mainland Europe. The culture of Ireland developed more quietly.
Martin Colreavy referred to the linkages of place and history and our literary tradition which the Georgian Dublin site reinforces.
Adrian Philips commented that this has a universal resonance for our themes such as the relationship of colonial domination and struggle for independence, language literature myth and place and Ireland as the last refuge of language and religion. The Chair said that we need to be able to express what is uniquely Irish, what Irish culture is about which is expressed by the sense of place. The famine was also mentioned as being a significant influence on Irish culture. A note of caution was expressed by some Group Experts regarding the use of the appropriate language to express these historical events that might be perceived as being politically incorrect in today’s world. The Chair, responded that what is needed is an unprejudiced interpretation of value of place. It should be a factual exercise as opposed to passing judgement on historical events. Anthropology is the vehicle for explaining former societies and the challenge is to express those intangible values as seen through the tangible heritage. The art of interpretation therefore is the use of the right language.
Finian Matthews remarked at this point that this is a very complex challenge and that the extent that we need to do this will vary considerably from one site to another.
Martin Colreavy referred the Group to a publication on Architecture and a Sense of Place by Alexander and Kevin Lynch which may provide an insight on this topic.
Agenda Item 4 - Review and Assessment by the Expert Group of Revised Reports of sites on current Tentative List in line with the agreed Format Document:
(a) The Boglands of North-West Mayo and Clara Bog - Dr. Rebecca Jeffrey
The Chair remarked that this report did not provide all the relevant information in line with the Format Document of 14 November. The report needs to be expanded considerably and finalised. A decision also needs to be taken by the Group as to whether the NW Mayo Boglands should be incorporated into the Céide Fields site. A number of experts on the Group felt that this consideration has merit.
No report was provided by Dr. Jeffrey on Clara Bog.
Action:
Rebecca to expand her report and liaise with Eugene Keane on Céide Fields.
Clara Bog report to be compiled by Rebecca in accordance with the standard format for the next meeting.
(b) The Burren - Dr. Claire Cave and Dr. Brendan Dunford
Dr. Dunford presented his new material on the Burren to the Group. He said that additional material has been included on the Karst. A comparative analysis has been done, justification of OUV and more detailed information provided on management. Criteria 5 and 8 of the Operational Guidelines have been identified as being met. Dr. Dunford provided a map showing the proposed core and buffer zones. The Group discussed the pros and cons of having such a large buffer zone and the management issues around this. Would it be better to opt for a smaller area (a segment as an exemplar) which might be easier to manage. It was agreed that the archaeological aspect of the Burren needs to be expanded. The report is not ready yet for inscription and still requires additional research on the management framework and consultation with local stakeholders.
Charles Stanley Smith informed the Group that there is a problem around the country with the enforcement of planning legislation. Planning infringements are a significant issue with protection of heritage sites.
The Group agreed that there needs to be a holistic/strategic planning statement within which the WH nomination can exist. It needs to respond to the challenges, use the opportunities as local communities may need to expand in the area. Clare/Galway County Councils need to address this in the County Development Plans, as this is a cross boundary site. There are also 2 Regional Authorities involved. The Group agreed that there needs to be a plan to provide planning context to the Burren. The Planning context needs to be stated in the report.
Joe Crockett commented that, in the current fiscal crisis, local authorities are likely to have human resources available now to work on forward planning. He said that we need to see WH nomination for inscription as a developmental process not a restrictive one and that we need to present it in a positive manner.
c) The Aran Islands
The Chair then raised the issue of the Aran Islands, which are of similar geological background to the Burren and he asked whether they should be separate nominations or part of a serial nomination. Dr. Dunford said that the cultural evolution of the people on the Aran Islands is very different to the Burren. Although the Karst is the same or similar the culture of the Aran Islands would be more influenced by the sea and the Irish language remains the main language on the Islands. The Aran Islands are very distinct culturally from the Burren. The Chair said that any problems/threats will need to be considered and addressed in a management plan. Farming practices too will need to be considered and Dr. Dunford reported that there is some blackthorn and bramble encroachment. What are the economics of the survival of the island communities? All these issues must be considered said the Chair.
The question was raised as to whether the people on the islands consider themselves to be an extension of the Burren or connected to it. They are culturally two distinct landscapes. However, it was noted that due to the off shore island status of the Aran Islands and the Gaeltacht that financial supports and grants will be more readily available. It was noted that the planning engagement time is now. A meeting with the County Managers to identify the opportunities that are presented was suggested by Joe Crockett. What plans have local authorities got? There is a need to put the WH nomination process in the context of their ideas.
Action: for both the Burren and the Aran Islands
Engage with the relevant local authorities on potential site management and protection measures and promotion and awareness of WH. Joe Crockett to assist with this.
(c) The 5 Royal Sites – Dr. Claire Cave
Dr. Cave provided an overview of her Report on the Royal sites. She said that Armagh was not included in the report as Dermot Burke and Finian Matthews were to meet with NI authorities first and check out the position. If Armagh is to be included it will then become a transboundary nomination. The Chair, commenting on this report, said that it does not yet meet the requirements set in the agreed Format Document. There are many questions still unanswered he said. Why should the sites be grouped together? What is the message or story told by the sites? What is the OUV for the sites and has this been stated? The Chair indicated that it might be useful for Dr. Cave to liaise with Dr. Garvey. There is a need, he said, to know how to express that intangible aspect of the royal sites. The comparative analysis is also important here. There is again a regional context for these sites.
The royal sites are places of inauguration and assembly in the 4 Irish provinces. The Hill of Uisneach was considered to be the epicenter of the country in the Neolithic period. Usually there an enclosure and a display of monument and represents the transition from paganism to Christianity in Ireland. The Authenticity and Integrity of the sites needs some expansion. Dr. Cave indicated that some research work on Uisneach is being published at the moment. The administration, legal protections and management plans require some additional work. What are the challenges/threats? Dr. Cave explained that 3 of the sites are on private land and the permission of the owner is required to enter lands. Uisneach is mentioned in the County Development Plan of the relevant local authority (Roscommon County Council). There is a need to further articulate the linkages. The Chair asked the Group as to whether it should be a group of sites or just any one particular site. Following some debate it was agreed that any one of the sites individually will not adequately tell the story and portray OUV and that all together they better express the real story. The theme needs to be more fully expressed. Dermot Burke stated that the nub of Irish literature and story telling originated in these sites.