Karpatská úmluva - Carpathian Convention

Annex IV
The Carpathian Convention and the conservation of
cultural heritage in the region
Report from the meeting
Date: 26th June 2007 from 9: 45 to 12:30 p.m.
Time: The regional office of the Zlín region, Tomáš Bata street 21, Zlín
The main goal of the meeting was the discussion on the cultural and natural heritage as a
contribution to the implementation of the Carpathian Convention in the Czech Republic.
Participants: organizations and people with the interest in the Carpathian convention – delegates
of the local administration, scientific and technical institutions in the field of culture, environment,
NGOs, and independent interested people in this field. The list of participants is part of this report.
10:00 – 11:15 Introductory presentations
The meeting was opened by Mr. Tomáš Kažmierski from Regional Environmental Centre CT. After
his introductory speech, Ms. Jana Brožová, the National Focal Point for the Carpathian Convention
from the Ministry of the Environment provided basic data on the Carpathian Convention and the
latest development at the national as well as international level. She summarized the outcomes from
the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the CC, which was held from 11 to 13
December 2006 in Kyiv. The meeting adopted a set of decisions which are binding for Parties. She
introduced the approved “Schedule of fulfillment of decisions and obligations arising from the COP
1 Decisions at the Czech Republic level”. She informed about the First meeting of the working
group on cultural heritage and traditional knowledge, which will be held on 27th to 28 August 2007
in Venice, Italy.
She answered a question from Mr. Hrabec from the Jihomoravský region, explaining that despite of
the fact we are still talking about protected landscape areas in the Czech Republic to be part of the
Carpathians, the area of Czech Carpathians is much wider and really – according to the
delimitations - includes other parts. We all have to try to make them more visible in the process of
implementation.
Mr. Kažmierski had a presentation highlighting the positives of the CC for the region. He talked
also about the regional brands/labels which guarantee origin, originality and relation to the concrete
region and they aim to make the local producers more visible. There are two brands/labels – mainly
the “Made in the Beskydy region” and the “Bile Karpaty Tradition”. He stressed that the
cooperation does not end with creating such labels, but that the regions and their representatives
wants to launch their own projects and make new activities.
2
11:15 – 12:30 Discussion to the cultural, natural and historical heritage of the
Carpathians and its protection from the stakeholder’s point of view
Ms. Barbora Šafárová form the Institute for eco-policy summarized the oral Terms of Reference of
this group in her presentation. Participants were divided into two groups having to answer the same
questions::
1) What is and can be understood as “Carpathian heritage”?
2) What – among the heritage is the most endangered from the participants point of view?
3) How to enhance the protection of CH?
The Carpathian heritage is: cultural as well as natural heritage. Both are closely connected and
mutually influencing each other. The landscape feature- typical for Carpathians has a dominant
forest features with typical trees and meadows. The natural environment is characterized by high
diversity. The pasturage as a long lasting phenomenon has created the landscape for centuries.
Other management techniques are closely linked. The settlement is typical for that region as well. It
is now endangered by the change of life-style and the change of use of dwelling and other houses
for recreational purposes.
Following features are – from the participants’ point of view part of the CH. First 7 in bold are the
most endangered:
Nature and the biodiversity
Traditional folk architecture
Folk crafts
Landscape features – the typical mosaic
Traditional way of management – agriculture and pasturage
Spontaneous folk music and folk groups
The way of settlements and historical features of the landscape – the life-style
Regional traditional local variants, genetic resources (fruit, vegetable) and breeds (e.g. sheep)
Traditional industry
Culture
Dialect and literature
The “VIP in the region”
Historical buildings
Places with spiritual potential
Look-out towers
Springs
There was a debate among participants on the border line between the living and moderate (not
living) folk culture which can be seen in some museums, fairs and in some folk groups which are
focused mainly on tourism and not so much on the historical point. They agreed that it is crucial to
support mainly the spontaneous activities to conserve and preserve the diversity of folk forms. On
the other hand, many of them stressed that it is necessary to see the culture in its traditional
development.
The natural development of the folk culture is the preservation of peoples´ behavior throughout the
year, their customs and activities (including the attendance at markets, churches visiting, wearing
folk costumes etc.) On the other hand the challenge is the low awareness concerning the importance
of the region as well as the missing solidarity and weak persuasion of local people that they want to
make the region visible. The absence of legal mechanism, gaps in regional and strategic planning
which does not respect the landscape originality has been called as another danger for the CH.
Missing and inadequate is the awareness for children and the regional and local authorities
3
concerning the use of EU funds and other financial resources. Another danger for CH is caused by
various investments and tourist offers which benefit is only for tourists and not for the nature,
landscape and traditions.
13:30 – 16:30 Meeting of the Working group for Carpathian Heritage (CH)
Ms. Safarova and Mr. Sacha from the Education and Information Center Bile Karpaty were chairing
the discussion; Mr. Sacha was nominated as a technical leader of the group.
The main aim of the working group whose members were delegated from technical institutions,
cultural and information centers, delegates of public authorities at the regional, local and republic
level is to contribute to the establishment of the List of Carpathian heritage in the Czech Republic
(traditions, celebrations, history) as a part of sustainable development of Carpathians. The purpose
is to define the criteria for development of the list, possible ways of presentation and use for the
business sector, public authority and local communities. Outcomes from the meeting will be taken
to the First meeting of the working group for cultural heritage and traditional knowledge under the
CC which will meet 27-28 August 2007.
The first step was to assess the current state of play of CH and its protection. First of all they agreed
that CH is all what is unique and what cannot be found anywhere else. The assessment was done
through presentation of case-studies and lessons learned from the region. Most of cases were from
the positive side than from negative ones. This was a proof that there are lot of projects in the
region and that in the field of CH protection we don’t need to start from scratch. The following
examples were presented:
Project name/organisation Project description and the assessment of the protection and support for heritage
White Karpaty needs
a manager (UNDP
project)
The support of the sheep and goats pasture and improvement of conditions
for sustainable management and the well-being of local people, options for
tourism sector, workshops of cheese home-making.
Tradition Slovácko –
micro-region
Ostrožsko
Producing and sustaining of folk-costumes which support the use of folkcostumes
and their use during many occasions and celebrations in the
region.
Hornácké celebrations
and Hornácké echoes
Unique festival, where you can find only folk-groups and artist from the
region, which consists of 9 towns/villages and presents the specificity of
the region
Luhacovské Zálesí -
castle
The castle is in forlorn conditions. It was offered for sales- despite the fact
it was still the property of The national institute of folk culture. It was
bought by the municipality and only the initiative of local people saved this
property. This is the example of inconsistency and non-systematic
approach when mapping and registering the heritage and monuments to the
state register
Muchovice Area
o.s. Beskydcan
Mountain enclave under Lysá hora Mts. The environmental education
project in the field through concrete activities such as the path through
forest, how the forest work, traditional livelihood, horse-riding, life in the
water, etc., project with minimum adverse effects on nature with minimum
investments and sustainable operation
Folk dance group
“Gruník”
Example of spontaneous folk youth assemblage (songs, rhymes, pasture
scenes, etc.) which prefer every day meetings of young people rather then
festivals and public performances. Donors and sponsors are missing to
4
Project name/organisation Project description and the assessment of the protection and support for heritage
donate small activities and actions.
Biological reserve
Vlcí prameny in
White Carpathians
The landscape management, the targeted protection of white Carpathians
meadows rich of fauna, flora and orchids
Kopanice Bílé
Karpaty
Dispersed houses and meadows – the problem is in the timing of scything
and cutting grass (mainly in the protected areas). When the timing is too
early it does not help the fauna and flora.
Hostýn and
Podhostýnsko –
Czech/Moravian
association for
environmental
protection
Reconstruction of meadows under the Hostyn town, museum of St. Hostyn
has been recently opened – we can see the history of a wanderer/pilgrim
place and the natural/scientific exhibition of Hostyn town and region
Veronica o.s.,”
Traditiono of White
Carpathians, Modrá
municipality, Nivnice
projects for the gene-fund protection - Traditional local variants (fruit,
vegetable)
Kunovice village The town hall runs 7 folk dance groups, folk school, organizes
woodcarving workshops and other activities
Modrá village open-air folk museum and educational programmes for schools –
traditional crafts, ceramic museum, educational programmes for mayors
how to sustainable manage its cities, the gene bank of willow trees, the
reconstruction of all fishponds.
Buchlovice The renewal of old knights rout
Many people highlighted its efforts in the gene-fund protection - Traditional local variants. s.
Brozova has therefore promise to invite Dr. Karel Jan Štolc, Guarantor of the National Program on
Conservation and Utilization of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture from the Ministry of
Agriculture for the next meeting of this working group (November 2007, Uherske Hradiste).
In the last part of the meeting the criteria and the creation of the list of CH was discussed (see the
chart below). It was stressed that the list should represent the Carpathian values and enhances the
prestige of the region. Further it should evaluate tangible as well as non-tangible heritage, support
and promote the cultural development and to contribute to the diversity of Carpathian region. The
list should look for what is common in all Carpathian countries and should be based on the bottomup
approach and should be accepted by local people and co-created by stakeholders. It is necessary
to set the criteria and to create mechanisms for the List development and its use always together -
with stakeholders. There was a debate on pros’ and cons’ on List of Carpathian heritage based on
UNESCO criteria. More arguments were for having the list as broad and open as possible to let to
include what should be included because of its general importance and the importance giving by the
local people against to the opinion to present what is the “best-seller” and unique. The list should
help to finance the Carpathian heritage and to motivate locals in awareness of the environment
uniqueness. The “conservation approach” (cultural values which should be protected) as well as the
“development approach” (to motivate the regional development on the basis of sustainable
development) should be applied while developing the List.
5
Outcomes from the working groups at the stakeholders meeting
Zlín, 26th June 2007
Questions for working groups:
1) What do you mean by Carpathian heritage, what can be understood as this?
2) What are the most endangered features of the CH from your perspective?
3) What are the priorities of the CH /their parts for the future?
Group No. 1 : Leader: Tomáš Kažmierski + Group No. 2 (leader: Barbora Šafárová)
Carpathian heritage and its components
The most
endangered1
Priority
protection2
Who can help, who
should/could be involved
in the protection process,
who can take care
Landscape (environment)/landscape characterfeatures
3 yes State administration, local
farmers, NGOs
Traditional folk - customs 1 yes Local people,
municipalities, The
national institute of folk
culture, museums,
“microregions”,
fellowships, folk groups
Nature, e.g. the forests - the species
composition, the way of management,
Conservation of the richness of biodiversity
5 State administration, NGO
Traditional/folk architecture, traditional
urbanism;
5 State administration,
architects, open-air folk
museums, museums, The
National Institute for the
Preservation of Historical
Monuments
Folk crafts, The diversity of regional folk
culture
5 yes Municipalities, organizes
of fairs and markets
Folklore, “still living folklore” (dialect, former
literature)
1 yes NGO – folk groups, local
people, municipalities, The
national institute of folk
culture, culture, museums,
“microregions”,
fellowships, folk groups
Regional “celebrity” The region, municipality,
towns, schools, libraries,
regional media
Places with spiritual potential/ values (the
column of crucifixion, chapels, statues,
pilgrimage places)
2 The National Institute for
the Preservation of
Historical Monuments,
municipalities, churches,
local people
Archeological excavation places Archeological institute,
NGO
Local Products (goods) Local producers,
salespersons, the events
organizers such as (fairs,
markets, celebrations, etc.)
1 Number of points from the group members
2 On what should we focus in the future, what is not dealt currently, and things – nobody takes care currently
6
Historical buildings, Owners, municipalities,
The National Institute for
the Preservation of
Historical Monuments
The history of the region, Historical cultural
and natural characteristics of the region
Museums, libraries,
Archives, schools,
historical artistic groups
Traditional local variants, genetic resources
(fruit, vegetable) and breeds (e.g. sheep)
yes Farmers, local people,
NGO, the farmers
associations, state
administration – the
Administration of
Protected Landscape Areas
„Traditional“industry such as textile industry,
glass production/making, shoemaking, etc…
LAG – Local Action Group
(NGO), businessman/
enterpriser, state
administration, the region,
municipality
Traditional management in the landscape
(agriculture, solitary cottager's management,
pasturage )
3 yes Farmers, breeders,
agriculturists, field owners,
municipality
Dialect and literature 1 yes Folk communities, , The
national institute of folk
culture, municipalities,
local people, NGO,
schools,
Lookout/observation towers Tourists (NGO),
municipalities, the
property/building owners
„Goddess from Kopanice region ” - mystery
Wisewomen – called as goddess in the local
dialect. They have lived in the Kopanice region
for a long long time and their activities attracted
people not only from the region but also from
far-away villages. The legend says that they can
heal a person not only using medicinal/ curative
herbs, but also to find lost or stolen things or to
give good advice in the partnership relations.
People look for them for a protection against
bewitch – as many people believe on this.
Writers, media, museums
Wells/springs Municipalities, property
owners, local people
Danger for those CHs
- Absence of legal and legislative mechanisms – hard to enforce the “good will” e.g. in the
spatial planning
- Low/ poor awareness, on the options on how to get money from the EU funds, etc. who to
speak with…
- The mutual communication of all these bodies/authorities is poor.
7
The summary of outcomes from both groups – how to define the Carpathian Heritage and
what is the process from the beginning to the designation (labeling)
Report done by: Mgr. Barbora Šafárová (ÚEP), Mgr. Jana Brožová (MŽP) a Ing. Tomáš
Kažmierski (REC CR)
Date: 12. 7. 2007
Carpathian Heritage (CH)
1st step:
Define the
purpose and
goal of the
stakeholders/
group
for whom
should/could be
the CH
protected/defined
Why
protect/define
the CH?
- „create more
of them”
- Use
- Prestige
- Conservation
and Protection
- Local people
incentives
- Revival
Criteria
Category:
Real estate
Chattel
Traditions, customs
Actions in the
region
2nd step:
Defining
criteria –
according to
what the CH
should be
defined
3rd step:
Defining a
decision
system
concerning
the CH
Who will decide what
CH and how Process:
b) approval
a) suggestion
Local regional
commission c) CH designation
Others…
Independent institutionAnnex IV
The Carpathian Convention and the conservation of
cultural heritage in the region
Report from the meeting
Date: 26th June 2007 from 9: 45 to 12:30 p.m.
Time: The regional office of the Zlín region, Tomáš Bata street 21, Zlín
The main goal of the meeting was the discussion on the cultural and natural heritage as a
contribution to the implementation of the Carpathian Convention in the Czech Republic.
Participants: organizations and people with the interest in the Carpathian convention – delegates
of the local administration, scientific and technical institutions in the field of culture, environment,
NGOs, and independent interested people in this field. The list of participants is part of this report.
10:00 – 11:15 Introductory presentations
The meeting was opened by Mr. Tomáš Kažmierski from Regional Environmental Centre CT. After
his introductory speech, Ms. Jana Brožová, the National Focal Point for the Carpathian Convention
from the Ministry of the Environment provided basic data on the Carpathian Convention and the
latest development at the national as well as international level. She summarized the outcomes from
the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the CC, which was held from 11 to 13
December 2006 in Kyiv. The meeting adopted a set of decisions which are binding for Parties. She
introduced the approved “Schedule of fulfillment of decisions and obligations arising from the COP
1 Decisions at the Czech Republic level”. She informed about the First meeting of the working
group on cultural heritage and traditional knowledge, which will be held on 27th to 28 August 2007
in Venice, Italy.
She answered a question from Mr. Hrabec from the Jihomoravský region, explaining that despite of
the fact we are still talking about protected landscape areas in the Czech Republic to be part of the
Carpathians, the area of Czech Carpathians is much wider and really – according to the
delimitations - includes other parts. We all have to try to make them more visible in the process of
implementation.
Mr. Kažmierski had a presentation highlighting the positives of the CC for the region. He talked
also about the regional brands/labels which guarantee origin, originality and relation to the concrete
region and they aim to make the local producers more visible. There are two brands/labels – mainly
the “Made in the Beskydy region” and the “Bile Karpaty Tradition”. He stressed that the
cooperation does not end with creating such labels, but that the regions and their representatives
wants to launch their own projects and make new activities.
2
11:15 – 12:30 Discussion to the cultural, natural and historical heritage of the
Carpathians and its protection from the stakeholder’s point of view
Ms. Barbora Šafárová form the Institute for eco-policy summarized the oral Terms of Reference of
this group in her presentation. Participants were divided into two groups having to answer the same
questions::
1) What is and can be understood as “Carpathian heritage”?
2) What – among the heritage is the most endangered from the participants point of view?
3) How to enhance the protection of CH?
The Carpathian heritage is: cultural as well as natural heritage. Both are closely connected and
mutually influencing each other. The landscape feature- typical for Carpathians has a dominant
forest features with typical trees and meadows. The natural environment is characterized by high
diversity. The pasturage as a long lasting phenomenon has created the landscape for centuries.
Other management techniques are closely linked. The settlement is typical for that region as well. It
is now endangered by the change of life-style and the change of use of dwelling and other houses
for recreational purposes.
Following features are – from the participants’ point of view part of the CH. First 7 in bold are the
most endangered:
Nature and the biodiversity
Traditional folk architecture
Folk crafts
Landscape features – the typical mosaic
Traditional way of management – agriculture and pasturage
Spontaneous folk music and folk groups
The way of settlements and historical features of the landscape – the life-style
Regional traditional local variants, genetic resources (fruit, vegetable) and breeds (e.g. sheep)
Traditional industry
Culture
Dialect and literature
The “VIP in the region”
Historical buildings
Places with spiritual potential
Look-out towers
Springs
There was a debate among participants on the border line between the living and moderate (not
living) folk culture which can be seen in some museums, fairs and in some folk groups which are
focused mainly on tourism and not so much on the historical point. They agreed that it is crucial to
support mainly the spontaneous activities to conserve and preserve the diversity of folk forms. On
the other hand, many of them stressed that it is necessary to see the culture in its traditional
development.
The natural development of the folk culture is the preservation of peoples´ behavior throughout the
year, their customs and activities (including the attendance at markets, churches visiting, wearing
folk costumes etc.) On the other hand the challenge is the low awareness concerning the importance
of the region as well as the missing solidarity and weak persuasion of local people that they want to
make the region visible. The absence of legal mechanism, gaps in regional and strategic planning
which does not respect the landscape originality has been called as another danger for the CH.
Missing and inadequate is the awareness for children and the regional and local authorities
3
concerning the use of EU funds and other financial resources. Another danger for CH is caused by
various investments and tourist offers which benefit is only for tourists and not for the nature,
landscape and traditions.
13:30 – 16:30 Meeting of the Working group for Carpathian Heritage (CH)
Ms. Safarova and Mr. Sacha from the Education and Information Center Bile Karpaty were chairing
the discussion; Mr. Sacha was nominated as a technical leader of the group.
The main aim of the working group whose members were delegated from technical institutions,
cultural and information centers, delegates of public authorities at the regional, local and republic
level is to contribute to the establishment of the List of Carpathian heritage in the Czech Republic
(traditions, celebrations, history) as a part of sustainable development of Carpathians. The purpose
is to define the criteria for development of the list, possible ways of presentation and use for the
business sector, public authority and local communities. Outcomes from the meeting will be taken
to the First meeting of the working group for cultural heritage and traditional knowledge under the
CC which will meet 27-28 August 2007.
The first step was to assess the current state of play of CH and its protection. First of all they agreed
that CH is all what is unique and what cannot be found anywhere else. The assessment was done
through presentation of case-studies and lessons learned from the region. Most of cases were from
the positive side than from negative ones. This was a proof that there are lot of projects in the
region and that in the field of CH protection we don’t need to start from scratch. The following
examples were presented:
Project name/organisation Project description and the assessment of the protection and support for heritage
White Karpaty needs
a manager (UNDP
project)
The support of the sheep and goats pasture and improvement of conditions
for sustainable management and the well-being of local people, options for
tourism sector, workshops of cheese home-making.
Tradition Slovácko –
micro-region
Ostrožsko
Producing and sustaining of folk-costumes which support the use of folkcostumes
and their use during many occasions and celebrations in the
region.
Hornácké celebrations
and Hornácké echoes
Unique festival, where you can find only folk-groups and artist from the
region, which consists of 9 towns/villages and presents the specificity of
the region
Luhacovské Zálesí -
castle
The castle is in forlorn conditions. It was offered for sales- despite the fact
it was still the property of The national institute of folk culture. It was
bought by the municipality and only the initiative of local people saved this
property. This is the example of inconsistency and non-systematic
approach when mapping and registering the heritage and monuments to the
state register
Muchovice Area
o.s. Beskydcan
Mountain enclave under Lysá hora Mts. The environmental education
project in the field through concrete activities such as the path through
forest, how the forest work, traditional livelihood, horse-riding, life in the
water, etc., project with minimum adverse effects on nature with minimum
investments and sustainable operation
Folk dance group
“Gruník”
Example of spontaneous folk youth assemblage (songs, rhymes, pasture
scenes, etc.) which prefer every day meetings of young people rather then
festivals and public performances. Donors and sponsors are missing to
4
Project name/organisation Project description and the assessment of the protection and support for heritage
donate small activities and actions.
Biological reserve
Vlcí prameny in
White Carpathians
The landscape management, the targeted protection of white Carpathians
meadows rich of fauna, flora and orchids
Kopanice Bílé
Karpaty
Dispersed houses and meadows – the problem is in the timing of scything
and cutting grass (mainly in the protected areas). When the timing is too
early it does not help the fauna and flora.
Hostýn and
Podhostýnsko –
Czech/Moravian
association for
environmental
protection
Reconstruction of meadows under the Hostyn town, museum of St. Hostyn
has been recently opened – we can see the history of a wanderer/pilgrim
place and the natural/scientific exhibition of Hostyn town and region
Veronica o.s.,”
Traditiono of White
Carpathians, Modrá
municipality, Nivnice
projects for the gene-fund protection - Traditional local variants (fruit,
vegetable)
Kunovice village The town hall runs 7 folk dance groups, folk school, organizes
woodcarving workshops and other activities
Modrá village open-air folk museum and educational programmes for schools –
traditional crafts, ceramic museum, educational programmes for mayors
how to sustainable manage its cities, the gene bank of willow trees, the
reconstruction of all fishponds.
Buchlovice The renewal of old knights rout
Many people highlighted its efforts in the gene-fund protection - Traditional local variants. s.
Brozova has therefore promise to invite Dr. Karel Jan Štolc, Guarantor of the National Program on
Conservation and Utilization of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture from the Ministry of
Agriculture for the next meeting of this working group (November 2007, Uherske Hradiste).
In the last part of the meeting the criteria and the creation of the list of CH was discussed (see the
chart below). It was stressed that the list should represent the Carpathian values and enhances the
prestige of the region. Further it should evaluate tangible as well as non-tangible heritage, support
and promote the cultural development and to contribute to the diversity of Carpathian region. The
list should look for what is common in all Carpathian countries and should be based on the bottomup
approach and should be accepted by local people and co-created by stakeholders. It is necessary
to set the criteria and to create mechanisms for the List development and its use always together -
with stakeholders. There was a debate on pros’ and cons’ on List of Carpathian heritage based on
UNESCO criteria. More arguments were for having the list as broad and open as possible to let to
include what should be included because of its general importance and the importance giving by the
local people against to the opinion to present what is the “best-seller” and unique. The list should
help to finance the Carpathian heritage and to motivate locals in awareness of the environment
uniqueness. The “conservation approach” (cultural values which should be protected) as well as the
“development approach” (to motivate the regional development on the basis of sustainable
development) should be applied while developing the List.
5
Outcomes from the working groups at the stakeholders meeting
Zlín, 26th June 2007
Questions for working groups:
1) What do you mean by Carpathian heritage, what can be understood as this?
2) What are the most endangered features of the CH from your perspective?
3) What are the priorities of the CH /their parts for the future?
Group No. 1 : Leader: Tomáš Kažmierski + Group No. 2 (leader: Barbora Šafárová)
Carpathian heritage and its components
The most
endangered1
Priority
protection2
Who can help, who
should/could be involved
in the protection process,
who can take care
Landscape (environment)/landscape characterfeatures
3 yes State administration, local
farmers, NGOs
Traditional folk - customs 1 yes Local people,
municipalities, The
national institute of folk
culture, museums,
“microregions”,
fellowships, folk groups
Nature, e.g. the forests - the species
composition, the way of management,
Conservation of the richness of biodiversity
5 State administration, NGO
Traditional/folk architecture, traditional
urbanism;
5 State administration,
architects, open-air folk
museums, museums, The
National Institute for the
Preservation of Historical
Monuments
Folk crafts, The diversity of regional folk
culture
5 yes Municipalities, organizes
of fairs and markets
Folklore, “still living folklore” (dialect, former
literature)
1 yes NGO – folk groups, local
people, municipalities, The
national institute of folk
culture, culture, museums,
“microregions”,
fellowships, folk groups
Regional “celebrity” The region, municipality,
towns, schools, libraries,
regional media
Places with spiritual potential/ values (the
column of crucifixion, chapels, statues,
pilgrimage places)
2 The National Institute for
the Preservation of
Historical Monuments,
municipalities, churches,
local people
Archeological excavation places Archeological institute,
NGO
Local Products (goods) Local producers,
salespersons, the events
organizers such as (fairs,
markets, celebrations, etc.)
1 Number of points from the group members
2 On what should we focus in the future, what is not dealt currently, and things – nobody takes care currently
6
Historical buildings, Owners, municipalities,
The National Institute for
the Preservation of
Historical Monuments
The history of the region, Historical cultural
and natural characteristics of the region
Museums, libraries,
Archives, schools,
historical artistic groups
Traditional local variants, genetic resources
(fruit, vegetable) and breeds (e.g. sheep)
yes Farmers, local people,
NGO, the farmers
associations, state
administration – the
Administration of
Protected Landscape Areas
„Traditional“industry such as textile industry,
glass production/making, shoemaking, etc…
LAG – Local Action Group
(NGO), businessman/
enterpriser, state
administration, the region,
municipality
Traditional management in the landscape
(agriculture, solitary cottager's management,
pasturage )
3 yes Farmers, breeders,
agriculturists, field owners,
municipality
Dialect and literature 1 yes Folk communities, , The
national institute of folk
culture, municipalities,
local people, NGO,
schools,
Lookout/observation towers Tourists (NGO),
municipalities, the
property/building owners
„Goddess from Kopanice region ” - mystery
Wisewomen – called as goddess in the local
dialect. They have lived in the Kopanice region
for a long long time and their activities attracted
people not only from the region but also from
far-away villages. The legend says that they can
heal a person not only using medicinal/ curative
herbs, but also to find lost or stolen things or to
give good advice in the partnership relations.
People look for them for a protection against
bewitch – as many people believe on this.
Writers, media, museums
Wells/springs Municipalities, property
owners, local people
Danger for those CHs
- Absence of legal and legislative mechanisms – hard to enforce the “good will” e.g. in the
spatial planning
- Low/ poor awareness, on the options on how to get money from the EU funds, etc. who to
speak with…
- The mutual communication of all these bodies/authorities is poor.
7
The summary of outcomes from both groups – how to define the Carpathian Heritage and
what is the process from the beginning to the designation (labeling)
Report done by: Mgr. Barbora Šafárová (ÚEP), Mgr. Jana Brožová (MŽP) a Ing. Tomáš
Kažmierski (REC CR)
Date: 12. 7. 2007
Carpathian Heritage (CH)
1st step:
Define the
purpose and
goal of the
stakeholders/
group
for whom
should/could be
the CH
protected/defined
Why
protect/define
the CH?
- „create more
of them”
- Use
- Prestige
- Conservation
and Protection
- Local people
incentives
- Revival
Criteria
Category:
Real estate
Chattel
Traditions, customs
Actions in the
region
2nd step:
Defining
criteria –
according to
what the CH
should be
defined
3rd step:
Defining a
decision
system
concerning
the CH
Who will decide what
CH and how Process:
b) approval
a) suggestion
Local regional
commission c) CH designation
Others…
Independent institutionAnnex IV
The Carpathian Convention and the conservation of
cultural heritage in the region
Report from the meeting
Date: 26th June 2007 from 9: 45 to 12:30 p.m.
Time: The regional office of the Zlín region, Tomáš Bata street 21, Zlín
The main goal of the meeting was the discussion on the cultural and natural heritage as a
contribution to the implementation of the Carpathian Convention in the Czech Republic.
Participants: organizations and people with the interest in the Carpathian convention – delegates
of the local administration, scientific and technical institutions in the field of culture, environment,
NGOs, and independent interested people in this field. The list of participants is part of this report.
10:00 – 11:15 Introductory presentations
The meeting was opened by Mr. Tomáš Kažmierski from Regional Environmental Centre CT. After
his introductory speech, Ms. Jana Brožová, the National Focal Point for the Carpathian Convention
from the Ministry of the Environment provided basic data on the Carpathian Convention and the
latest development at the national as well as international level. She summarized the outcomes from
the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the CC, which was held from 11 to 13
December 2006 in Kyiv. The meeting adopted a set of decisions which are binding for Parties. She
introduced the approved “Schedule of fulfillment of decisions and obligations arising from the COP
1 Decisions at the Czech Republic level”. She informed about the First meeting of the working
group on cultural heritage and traditional knowledge, which will be held on 27th to 28 August 2007
in Venice, Italy.
She answered a question from Mr. Hrabec from the Jihomoravský region, explaining that despite of
the fact we are still talking about protected landscape areas in the Czech Republic to be part of the
Carpathians, the area of Czech Carpathians is much wider and really – according to the
delimitations - includes other parts. We all have to try to make them more visible in the process of
implementation.
Mr. Kažmierski had a presentation highlighting the positives of the CC for the region. He talked
also about the regional brands/labels which guarantee origin, originality and relation to the concrete
region and they aim to make the local producers more visible. There are two brands/labels – mainly
the “Made in the Beskydy region” and the “Bile Karpaty Tradition”. He stressed that the
cooperation does not end with creating such labels, but that the regions and their representatives
wants to launch their own projects and make new activities.
2
11:15 – 12:30 Discussion to the cultural, natural and historical heritage of the
Carpathians and its protection from the stakeholder’s point of view
Ms. Barbora Šafárová form the Institute for eco-policy summarized the oral Terms of Reference of
this group in her presentation. Participants were divided into two groups having to answer the same
questions::
1) What is and can be understood as “Carpathian heritage”?
2) What – among the heritage is the most endangered from the participants point of view?
3) How to enhance the protection of CH?
The Carpathian heritage is: cultural as well as natural heritage. Both are closely connected and
mutually influencing each other. The landscape feature- typical for Carpathians has a dominant
forest features with typical trees and meadows. The natural environment is characterized by high
diversity. The pasturage as a long lasting phenomenon has created the landscape for centuries.
Other management techniques are closely linked. The settlement is typical for that region as well. It
is now endangered by the change of life-style and the change of use of dwelling and other houses
for recreational purposes.
Following features are – from the participants’ point of view part of the CH. First 7 in bold are the
most endangered:
Nature and the biodiversity
Traditional folk architecture
Folk crafts
Landscape features – the typical mosaic
Traditional way of management – agriculture and pasturage
Spontaneous folk music and folk groups
The way of settlements and historical features of the landscape – the life-style
Regional traditional local variants, genetic resources (fruit, vegetable) and breeds (e.g. sheep)
Traditional industry
Culture
Dialect and literature
The “VIP in the region”
Historical buildings
Places with spiritual potential
Look-out towers
Springs
There was a debate among participants on the border line between the living and moderate (not
living) folk culture which can be seen in some museums, fairs and in some folk groups which are
focused mainly on tourism and not so much on the historical point. They agreed that it is crucial to
support mainly the spontaneous activities to conserve and preserve the diversity of folk forms. On
the other hand, many of them stressed that it is necessary to see the culture in its traditional
development.
The natural development of the folk culture is the preservation of peoples´ behavior throughout the
year, their customs and activities (including the attendance at markets, churches visiting, wearing
folk costumes etc.) On the other hand the challenge is the low awareness concerning the importance
of the region as well as the missing solidarity and weak persuasion of local people that they want to
make the region visible. The absence of legal mechanism, gaps in regional and strategic planning
which does not respect the landscape originality has been called as another danger for the CH.
Missing and inadequate is the awareness for children and the regional and local authorities
3
concerning the use of EU funds and other financial resources. Another danger for CH is caused by
various investments and tourist offers which benefit is only for tourists and not for the nature,
landscape and traditions.
13:30 – 16:30 Meeting of the Working group for Carpathian Heritage (CH)
Ms. Safarova and Mr. Sacha from the Education and Information Center Bile Karpaty were chairing
the discussion; Mr. Sacha was nominated as a technical leader of the group.
The main aim of the working group whose members were delegated from technical institutions,
cultural and information centers, delegates of public authorities at the regional, local and republic
level is to contribute to the establishment of the List of Carpathian heritage in the Czech Republic
(traditions, celebrations, history) as a part of sustainable development of Carpathians. The purpose
is to define the criteria for development of the list, possible ways of presentation and use for the
business sector, public authority and local communities. Outcomes from the meeting will be taken
to the First meeting of the working group for cultural heritage and traditional knowledge under the
CC which will meet 27-28 August 2007.
The first step was to assess the current state of play of CH and its protection. First of all they agreed
that CH is all what is unique and what cannot be found anywhere else. The assessment was done
through presentation of case-studies and lessons learned from the region. Most of cases were from
the positive side than from negative ones. This was a proof that there are lot of projects in the
region and that in the field of CH protection we don’t need to start from scratch. The following
examples were presented:
Project name/organisation Project description and the assessment of the protection and support for heritage
White Karpaty needs
a manager (UNDP
project)
The support of the sheep and goats pasture and improvement of conditions
for sustainable management and the well-being of local people, options for
tourism sector, workshops of cheese home-making.
Tradition Slovácko –
micro-region
Ostrožsko
Producing and sustaining of folk-costumes which support the use of folkcostumes
and their use during many occasions and celebrations in the
region.
Hornácké celebrations
and Hornácké echoes
Unique festival, where you can find only folk-groups and artist from the
region, which consists of 9 towns/villages and presents the specificity of
the region
Luhacovské Zálesí -
castle
The castle is in forlorn conditions. It was offered for sales- despite the fact
it was still the property of The national institute of folk culture. It was
bought by the municipality and only the initiative of local people saved this
property. This is the example of inconsistency and non-systematic
approach when mapping and registering the heritage and monuments to the
state register
Muchovice Area
o.s. Beskydcan
Mountain enclave under Lysá hora Mts. The environmental education
project in the field through concrete activities such as the path through
forest, how the forest work, traditional livelihood, horse-riding, life in the
water, etc., project with minimum adverse effects on nature with minimum
investments and sustainable operation
Folk dance group
“Gruník”
Example of spontaneous folk youth assemblage (songs, rhymes, pasture
scenes, etc.) which prefer every day meetings of young people rather then
festivals and public performances. Donors and sponsors are missing to
4
Project name/organisation Project description and the assessment of the protection and support for heritage
donate small activities and actions.
Biological reserve
Vlcí prameny in
White Carpathians
The landscape management, the targeted protection of white Carpathians
meadows rich of fauna, flora and orchids
Kopanice Bílé
Karpaty
Dispersed houses and meadows – the problem is in the timing of scything
and cutting grass (mainly in the protected areas). When the timing is too
early it does not help the fauna and flora.
Hostýn and
Podhostýnsko –
Czech/Moravian
association for
environmental
protection
Reconstruction of meadows under the Hostyn town, museum of St. Hostyn
has been recently opened – we can see the history of a wanderer/pilgrim
place and the natural/scientific exhibition of Hostyn town and region
Veronica o.s.,”
Traditiono of White
Carpathians, Modrá
municipality, Nivnice
projects for the gene-fund protection - Traditional local variants (fruit,
vegetable)
Kunovice village The town hall runs 7 folk dance groups, folk school, organizes
woodcarving workshops and other activities
Modrá village open-air folk museum and educational programmes for schools –
traditional crafts, ceramic museum, educational programmes for mayors
how to sustainable manage its cities, the gene bank of willow trees, the
reconstruction of all fishponds.
Buchlovice The renewal of old knights rout
Many people highlighted its efforts in the gene-fund protection - Traditional local variants. s.
Brozova has therefore promise to invite Dr. Karel Jan Štolc, Guarantor of the National Program on
Conservation and Utilization of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture from the Ministry of
Agriculture for the next meeting of this working group (November 2007, Uherske Hradiste).
In the last part of the meeting the criteria and the creation of the list of CH was discussed (see the
chart below). It was stressed that the list should represent the Carpathian values and enhances the
prestige of the region. Further it should evaluate tangible as well as non-tangible heritage, support
and promote the cultural development and to contribute to the diversity of Carpathian region. The
list should look for what is common in all Carpathian countries and should be based on the bottomup
approach and should be accepted by local people and co-created by stakeholders. It is necessary
to set the criteria and to create mechanisms for the List development and its use always together -
with stakeholders. There was a debate on pros’ and cons’ on List of Carpathian heritage based on
UNESCO criteria. More arguments were for having the list as broad and open as possible to let to
include what should be included because of its general importance and the importance giving by the
local people against to the opinion to present what is the “best-seller” and unique. The list should
help to finance the Carpathian heritage and to motivate locals in awareness of the environment
uniqueness. The “conservation approach” (cultural values which should be protected) as well as the
“development approach” (to motivate the regional development on the basis of sustainable
development) should be applied while developing the List.
5
Outcomes from the working groups at the stakeholders meeting
Zlín, 26th June 2007
Questions for working groups:
1) What do you mean by Carpathian heritage, what can be understood as this?
2) What are the most endangered features of the CH from your perspective?
3) What are the priorities of the CH /their parts for the future?
Group No. 1 : Leader: Tomáš Kažmierski + Group No. 2 (leader: Barbora Šafárová)
Carpathian heritage and its components
The most
endangered1
Priority
protection2
Who can help, who
should/could be involved
in the protection process,
who can take care
Landscape (environment)/landscape characterfeatures
3 yes State administration, local
farmers, NGOs
Traditional folk - customs 1 yes Local people,
municipalities, The
national institute of folk
culture, museums,
“microregions”,
fellowships, folk groups
Nature, e.g. the forests - the species
composition, the way of management,
Conservation of the richness of biodiversity
5 State administration, NGO
Traditional/folk architecture, traditional
urbanism;
5 State administration,
architects, open-air folk
museums, museums, The
National Institute for the
Preservation of Historical
Monuments
Folk crafts, The diversity of regional folk
culture
5 yes Municipalities, organizes
of fairs and markets
Folklore, “still living folklore” (dialect, former
literature)
1 yes NGO – folk groups, local
people, municipalities, The
national institute of folk
culture, culture, museums,
“microregions”,
fellowships, folk groups
Regional “celebrity” The region, municipality,
towns, schools, libraries,
regional media
Places with spiritual potential/ values (the
column of crucifixion, chapels, statues,
pilgrimage places)
2 The National Institute for
the Preservation of
Historical Monuments,
municipalities, churches,
local people
Archeological excavation places Archeological institute,
NGO
Local Products (goods) Local producers,
salespersons, the events
organizers such as (fairs,
markets, celebrations, etc.)
1 Number of points from the group members
2 On what should we focus in the future, what is not dealt currently, and things – nobody takes care currently
6
Historical buildings, Owners, municipalities,
The National Institute for
the Preservation of
Historical Monuments
The history of the region, Historical cultural
and natural characteristics of the region
Museums, libraries,
Archives, schools,
historical artistic groups
Traditional local variants, genetic resources
(fruit, vegetable) and breeds (e.g. sheep)
yes Farmers, local people,
NGO, the farmers
associations, state
administration – the
Administration of
Protected Landscape Areas
„Traditional“industry such as textile industry,
glass production/making, shoemaking, etc…
LAG – Local Action Group
(NGO), businessman/
enterpriser, state
administration, the region,
municipality
Traditional management in the landscape
(agriculture, solitary cottager's management,
pasturage )
3 yes Farmers, breeders,
agriculturists, field owners,
municipality
Dialect and literature 1 yes Folk communities, , The
national institute of folk
culture, municipalities,
local people, NGO,
schools,
Lookout/observation towers Tourists (NGO),
municipalities, the
property/building owners
„Goddess from Kopanice region ” - mystery
Wisewomen – called as goddess in the local
dialect. They have lived in the Kopanice region
for a long long time and their activities attracted
people not only from the region but also from
far-away villages. The legend says that they can
heal a person not only using medicinal/ curative
herbs, but also to find lost or stolen things or to
give good advice in the partnership relations.
People look for them for a protection against
bewitch – as many people believe on this.
Writers, media, museums
Wells/springs Municipalities, property
owners, local people
Danger for those CHs
- Absence of legal and legislative mechanisms – hard to enforce the “good will” e.g. in the
spatial planning
- Low/ poor awareness, on the options on how to get money from the EU funds, etc. who to
speak with…
- The mutual communication of all these bodies/authorities is poor.
7
The summary of outcomes from both groups – how to define the Carpathian Heritage and
what is the process from the beginning to the designation (labeling)
Report done by: Mgr. Barbora Šafárová (ÚEP), Mgr. Jana Brožová (MŽP) a Ing. Tomáš
Kažmierski (REC CR)
Date: 12. 7. 2007
Carpathian Heritage (CH)
1st step:
Define the
purpose and
goal of the
stakeholders/
group
for whom
should/could be
the CH
protected/defined
Why
protect/define
the CH?
- „create more
of them”
- Use
- Prestige
- Conservation
and Protection
- Local people
incentives
- Revival
Criteria
Category:
Real estate
Chattel
Traditions, customs
Actions in the
region
2nd step:
Defining
criteria –
according to
what the CH
should be
defined
3rd step:
Defining a
decision
system
concerning
the CH
Who will decide what
CH and how Process:
b) approval
a) suggestion
Local regional
commission c) CH designation
Others…
Independent institutionAnnex IV
The Carpathian Convention and the conservation of
cultural heritage in the region
Report from the meeting
Date: 26th June 2007 from 9: 45 to 12:30 p.m.
Time: The regional office of the Zlín region, Tomáš Bata street 21, Zlín
The main goal of the meeting was the discussion on the cultural and natural heritage as a
contribution to the implementation of the Carpathian Convention in the Czech Republic.
Participants: organizations and people with the interest in the Carpathian convention – delegates
of the local administration, scientific and technical institutions in the field of culture, environment,
NGOs, and independent interested people in this field. The list of participants is part of this report.
10:00 – 11:15 Introductory presentations
The meeting was opened by Mr. Tomáš Kažmierski from Regional Environmental Centre CT. After
his introductory speech, Ms. Jana Brožová, the National Focal Point for the Carpathian Convention
from the Ministry of the Environment provided basic data on the Carpathian Convention and the
latest development at the national as well as international level. She summarized the outcomes from
the First Meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the CC, which was held from 11 to 13
December 2006 in Kyiv. The meeting adopted a set of decisions which are binding for Parties. She
introduced the approved “Schedule of fulfillment of decisions and obligations arising from the COP
1 Decisions at the Czech Republic level”. She informed about the First meeting of the working
group on cultural heritage and traditional knowledge, which will be held on 27th to 28 August 2007
in Venice, Italy.
She answered a question from Mr. Hrabec from the Jihomoravský region, explaining that despite of
the fact we are still talking about protected landscape areas in the Czech Republic to be part of the
Carpathians, the area of Czech Carpathians is much wider and really – according to the
delimitations - includes other parts. We all have to try to make them more visible in the process of
implementation.
Mr. Kažmierski had a presentation highlighting the positives of the CC for the region. He talked
also about the regional brands/labels which guarantee origin, originality and relation to the concrete
region and they aim to make the local producers more visible. There are two brands/labels – mainly
the “Made in the Beskydy region” and the “Bile Karpaty Tradition”. He stressed that the
cooperation does not end with creating such labels, but that the regions and their representatives
wants to launch their own projects and make new activities.
2
11:15 – 12:30 Discussion to the cultural, natural and historical heritage of the
Carpathians and its protection from the stakeholder’s point of view
Ms. Barbora Šafárová form the Institute for eco-policy summarized the oral Terms of Reference of
this group in her presentation. Participants were divided into two groups having to answer the same
questions::
1) What is and can be understood as “Carpathian heritage”?
2) What – among the heritage is the most endangered from the participants point of view?
3) How to enhance the protection of CH?
The Carpathian heritage is: cultural as well as natural heritage. Both are closely connected and
mutually influencing each other. The landscape feature- typical for Carpathians has a dominant
forest features with typical trees and meadows. The natural environment is characterized by high
diversity. The pasturage as a long lasting phenomenon has created the landscape for centuries.
Other management techniques are closely linked. The settlement is typical for that region as well. It
is now endangered by the change of life-style and the change of use of dwelling and other houses
for recreational purposes.
Following features are – from the participants’ point of view part of the CH. First 7 in bold are the
most endangered:
Nature and the biodiversity
Traditional folk architecture
Folk crafts
Landscape features – the typical mosaic
Traditional way of management – agriculture and pasturage
Spontaneous folk music and folk groups
The way of settlements and historical features of the landscape – the life-style
Regional traditional local variants, genetic resources (fruit, vegetable) and breeds (e.g. sheep)
Traditional industry
Culture
Dialect and literature
The “VIP in the region”
Historical buildings
Places with spiritual potential
Look-out towers
Springs
There was a debate among participants on the border line between the living and moderate (not
living) folk culture which can be seen in some museums, fairs and in some folk groups which are
focused mainly on tourism and not so much on the historical point. They agreed that it is crucial to
support mainly the spontaneous activities to conserve and preserve the diversity of folk forms. On
the other hand, many of them stressed that it is necessary to see the culture in its traditional
development.
The natural development of the folk culture is the preservation of peoples´ behavior throughout the
year, their customs and activities (including the attendance at markets, churches visiting, wearing
folk costumes etc.) On the other hand the challenge is the low awareness concerning the importance
of the region as well as the missing solidarity and weak persuasion of local people that they want to
make the region visible. The absence of legal mechanism, gaps in regional and strategic planning
which does not respect the landscape originality has been called as another danger for the CH.
Missing and inadequate is the awareness for children and the regional and local authorities
3
concerning the use of EU funds and other financial resources. Another danger for CH is caused by
various investments and tourist offers which benefit is only for tourists and not for the nature,
lan