Day 1:

 

Workshop participants were welcomed by the General Director of the National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation of Georgia – Mr. Merab Bochoidze, Project Manager at EU Delegation to Georgia – Mr. Oliver Reisner and representative of the Ministry of Culture and Monuments’ Protection of Georgia Ms. Maka Shavishvili. After the welcoming words participants introduced themselves and Nato Tsintsabadze – Project Coordinator from ICOMOS Georgia introduced the project and its components to the participants.

 

Presentations’ cycle was opened by the representative of the Norwegian Directorate for Cultural Heritage, Ms. Aase Bitustoel on the topic “Cultural Heritage as an asset in local and regional development”

 

Summary: Even in Norway despite the wealth we feel that there is not enough money for the protection of cultural heritage and thus we look for ways to seek more funds. Some programs for the protection of heritage: There is a “Ruins” program for which we have 10 mln Euros. There is much heritage in private ownership and owners are responsible for the care. Some own about 35 monuments and they have to seek funds themselves. Many of such owners are united in NGOs and some are even assisted by government. There are 220 protected boats. Described the difference between the categories of listing. Listed buildings are strictly protected. There are protected sites which are protected through regulations. Listing started in 1923. Cultural heritage means all traces of human activity. Her division deals also with the cultural landscapes and industrial heritage. Ministry of health is listing heritage related to their sphere of competence. Each ministry has either their heritage team or use outsourcing. They look for sites and then RA lists. There are 200.000 archaeological listed sites. Everything before 1537 - the Reformation is automatically listed in Norway. RA has 32 mln Euros annually only for listed buildings. Norwegian Cultural Heritage Fund has 8 mln Euros which can be used for other monuments which are not listed, but have values and cannot be cared for by the private owners. Thus private owners of all kinds of heritage can apply for funds.

Value generating programme – 2006-2010:

11 projects selected from 70 proposals to be funded. We aimed at social, environmental, cultural and economic value. Aim was to disseminate knowledge about value generation. Project “Heritage Seekers” – children looked for heritage sites. This programme was mostly funded by RA, by heritage fund and also by the counties and some portion by other project support from other ministries. 6 ministries are cooperating on value generating projects. Network between mountain farms – Valdres regional park. Also young people are engaged in the work. 700 km of St. Olavs pilgrimage way which has signage and accommodation options on the way. Farm houses on the way were turned into inns where pilgrims stay and generate income for locals. Listed farms cooperate in tourism sector. At the end it was possible to measure added value, jobs, number of visitors, and other indicators. 66 new private businesses were turned into 115, etc. Success criteria: the project leader, long term commitment, positive regional and local administration. The main advice to the government was to involve regional country management and to involve value creation generation projects in the overall heritage management. From 2011-2013 new projects started involving heavily the regional administration. WW II and cold war heritage was supported. Collaboration with hikers associations promoting heritage hikes. Along the heritage paths information can be obtained about the heritage of the place.

 

Presentation was followed by questions and discussion about sustainability.

 

Eka Maisaia presented analysis about the main trends for the preservation and development of immovable heritage sites in Tbilisi.

 

Summary: The scope of the study is the reality that most heritage sites in urban spaces are located in the areas where real estate prices are high. Awareness of the local population is very low. Main challenge of urban heritage sites is that the buildings are in difficult physical condition. The owners have no ability to take care of their heritage. The trend is that new buyers are reluctant to buying listed buildings as the regulations are strict and restoration costs are very high. In her study she studied examples from other countries. What are the alternatives?

Investment

Do nothing

tax incentives

Co-funding

 

Investment:

State funded with its own budget a municipal rehabilitation fund. The owners were put in unequal condition. The owners were freed from the entire responsibility

 

Tax incentives – only nationally listed properties get VAT relief

 

Recommendations: Carry out sociological survey of the owners; Create criteria for co-funding; Facilitate creation of civil society, community groups draft and legal and sub-law acts.

 

Teymur Valiyev from Azerbaijan presented a case of World Bank project support to the cultural heritage preservation in Azerbaijan.

Summary: The beneficiaries were four cities in Baku, Sheki and two in Nakhichivan. Aim was to conserve selected sites that were in danger. Key performance indicators were increase in the number of visitors to cultural sites, increase in the number of volunteers and non-governmental groups involved in restoration of historical and cultural sites. At mid-term some activities were added to promote social and economic development. B&B was created, crafts programme carried out, festival organized, etc. As a result new opportunities appeared for the local community. B&B association and Sheki Handicrafts Association were created. As part of the crafts programme trainings in traditional crafts were carried out. Guides were trained. Partnerships established with Central Asian countries.

 

Yulian Chaplinskyy – participant from Lviv, Ukraine presented a topic on functionalism architecture of Lviv – “Lost Thirties”

Summary: Most of the city of Lviv was formed in the 18th c. 1929-1932 Ferdinand Kassler – Austrian Architect built a few buildings in the center. Art Deco and Bauhaus is also visible in Lviv. 1928-1938 functionalism buildings are appearing. Lviv is more a capital of functionalism rather than eclecticism. We created a map of functionalist houses. Unfortunately functionalism is not taught in the university. In 1960-1980ies some Soviet architects tried to resemble functionalist architects from the 1930ies. None of the functionalist buildings are inscribed in the heritage list. The author created a manifest to ICOMOS Ukraine to help promote this heritage. They have created a FB page and do some campaigns, but not yet on the state level.  They have some connections with Polish groups and have relations with Basel, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, etc.

 

Lousine Javadyan – Armenia

 

Summary: Reviews problems to cultural heritage preservation in Armenia. Challenges are diverse, natural disasters as well as anthropogenic reasons. The challenge is to modernize but at the same time protect the cultural significance. Case study on the Ashtarak city which is traditionally a fruit and wine producing region. It is a popular site for tourism. Heritage in this region includes: Traditional national houses, bread backing places, baths, mills, wine houses, etc. In 1974 a reserve was created around the area. Recently a conservation plan was adopted for the city of Ashtarak. Some streets in the historical center were rehabilitated. The main works concerned roofing, masonry, parts of wooden balconies using the historical features and design.

 

Due to absence of David Jincharadze – participant from Georgia, Nato Tsintsabadze presented some photos of the negative impacts of works carried out in Kakheti and Tusheti through the WB project.

 

Zaruhi Mamyan – Armenia

 

Summary: Presented on issues of preserving the architectural and urban development concept of the historic center of Yerevan. Master Plan by Tumanyan from 1924 still remains as the master plan. There was one more plan in Soviet Times and the last one from 2005. Main goals of development of the city are: Agriculture, Tourism, regional small and medium scale industries, Nano technologies. Yerevan survives from rending out its real estate, it is  its main asset. Land owner – city. Urban reconstruction poses a challenge. The land is the main source of development for the city. New document – zoning plans are being created. The positive side is that the civil society is becoming stronger, they know their rights and they can exercise their rights.

 

Ana Shanshiashvili – Georgia

 

Summary: Talked about the ongoing project by GACC and its main components, such as assessment studies, capacity building, development of partnerships and awareness raising. Among their recommendations are to introduce the status: “Living treasure”, also tax deduction policies for crafts producers. Enhancement of cooperation between crafts sector and higher education institutions dealing with fashion and design. Fostering links with tourism industry; Funding for rural craftsmen & crafts education centers to be made into tourist destinatons; Support in distribution and marketing.

 

Day 2

 

The day started with showing a film made by Riksantikvaren.

 

Summary: Describing heritage projects undertaken in different regions of Norway, highlighting the challenges and the ways for safeguarding and preserving various types of heritage. Cultural landscapes, industrial heritage, local crafts, like traditional fishing, etc. “Stone in School” teaching the traditional technique of making stone shingles from soapstone in a region which traditionally lived from this industry, but where the tradition was about to die out.

 

Discussion on the topics of the previous day, Summary .

 

Question from Mr. Valyev to Ms. Bitustoel: What is the main value of industrial heritage, cultural or historical?

-         Hydroelectric power stations were very important for Norway at the beginning of its industrial development. It is a historic monument.

Discussion went on further and sought to seek advice from each other’s experience on how to justify to decision makers the significance and importance of historical value of industrial heritage.

Georgia’s case was mentioned, where 80 % of listed heritage sites are medieval religious structures. There is very little diversity in typology of listed sites. There are very few minority heritage sites. Heritage is the evidence of each stage of development of the society, but is not reflected in the actual list. Norwegian expert explained Norway’s experience with listing Sami heritage. Not all existing policies on listing are working well. Questions regarding, where the planning of such heritage projects in Norway happens, from the community, organization or someone else? Agriculture, regional government, fisheries, environment, culture, education ministries cooperate within the value generating programme.

The concept grew from representing the highest, greatest achievements of humanity to all scales of human development. Common, everyday vernacular heritage is being lost, while in the Norwegian examples, such heritage is being kept on site. Community needs to be made of aware the qualities they possess, the heritage they possess.

 

Afternoon session:

 

Public involvement is easier implemented in Norway because every plan has to be made public before they are adopted. How to deal with the split opinion? Discussions can take many years before a decision is made.  Awareness of population is very crucial, it is less costly. Signage is easy and not so costly to do so that community realizes what values exist. Future planning should take place nowadays. Heritage conservation should be part of the future planning. Dialogue at all levels is crucial. Heritage conservation should not be restricted under either ministry of tourism or culture, it should be independent, be an entity of its own. Importance of cultural statistics like Eurostat and UNESCO statistics rules were stressed. Cost-benefit analysis necessary for heritage conservation projects. National statistics agency does not trust other statistic information other than the ones made by them. Making statistics is difficult, but it should start.

 

Opinions on the future of such workshops: Workshops are practical in general and we should continue. Enlarge the scale, ensure more media coverage. Include more thematic, more specific cases. It is better to have one challenge, one problem to be discussed. So that everyone discusses and looks for a solution together. It can’t be a very small and specific case, but should relate to all participants. Presentation of projects and their discussion could be fruitful. One presentation and more engaged discussions where all participants bring in their experience.

Suggestions were made to make a multidisciplinary team which will work on one topic. It was suggested to move the workshop venue to a heritage site.