2021. 5. 19.

2011년 역사도시경관 권고 이행에 관한 가입국간 2차 협의(2019년) 보고서 결론 부분

 19 - Conclusions

76. While the number of Member States responding to the Survey was 55, reporting from the Group III, IV, Va and Vb need to be significantly higher to understand the accomplishments and challenges in those regions and better support them.

77. The Recommendation is more relevant today than ever as cities and their heritage continue to face a number of complex global challenges and seek sustainability, inclusion, and resilience. The HUL approach is a tool to manage change in historic urban areas facing current global challenges.

78. The data shows that there has been some progress made in implementing key concepts of the Recommendation, yet much remains to be done. Member States reflected that although the survey addressed national/federal authorities, the information requested was targeted to the local governments. Therefore, in implementation of the HUL approach, it is crucial to establish links between national/federal and local level decision makers at the country level.

79. There is also a need to re-emphasize that the Recommendation addresses historic urban areas in UNESCO Member States beyond those on the World Heritage List.

80. It is important to implement the HUL approach when working directly with cities and towns to support implementation at the local level

81. The majority of the responding Member States reported that they have implemented eco-sensitive policies. The contribution of nature in regards to quality of life, urban heritage and climate adaptation, existing cooperation among Advisory Bodies should be further enhanced to develop an integrated programmatic approach.

82. It is also valuable to reinforce integration with the 2030 Agenda, Goal 11 in particular, and the New Urban Agenda by supporting long term resilience and recovery in the context of climate related disasters and mitigate the impacts of conflicts on urban areas with heritage;

83. The Recommendation must be implemented as an urgent and necessary tool for resolving the conflicting demands of heritage conservation and urban development for more sustainable cities in those cities that have properties inscribed on the World Heritage List as well as those that do not. This demands establishing a programmatic approach to developing guidance materials, tools, and capacity building to prioritize needs.

84. The dissemination of international good practices on HUL approach is required; nonetheless, it is reported to be limited. The research as well as guidance materials that have already been completed and developed should be disseminated and the experiences of cities shared. A platform of exchange for cities would be valuable to share knowledge, good practices, and experiences.

85. The majority of the responding Member States reported that they have given importance to intangible cultural heritage through the UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003). The contribution of the associated intangible cultural heritage should be better integrated in the urban development.

86. The reporting indicates a need to explore innovative partnerships between local, national, international agencies, UN programmes, development cooperation agencies, communities, and private sector as well as a need to explore innovative financial mechanisms including partnerships to enable better implementation of United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the New Urban Agenda.

87. Although the World Heritage Programme provides relevant data on outstanding historic urban areas for monitoring purposes, other monitoring mechanisms are necessary to support cities in monitoring and assessing their implementation of the Recommendation particularly in the context of the SDGs.

88. The overall highest number of positive replies were received on “policies that link culture to urban development” and on “innovative tourism activities available for historic urban areas” in Section I (89.1%) indicating that UNESCO was successful in integrating culture in development policies.

89. Although the majority of the responding Member States referred that they were working on their National Urban Policies, the overall lowest number of positive replies were received on “National Urban Forum of NGOs” in Section I (29.1%) which requires further attention of Member States in localising the integration of HUL approach at the local level.

90. The data shows that the majority of the impact assessments are in the form of Environmental Assessments (EIA). Therefore integrating heritage impact assessment within the EIA as well as other tools for assessing the impact of projects are necessary.

91. Educational programmes are limited for young professionals, therefore capacity building is necessary across regions and between diverse stakeholders including local authorities and communities. Better harnessing of digital technologies concerning urban heritage to reach out to youth and other under-represented groups should be examined.

92. The participation of local communities is reported to be limited, therefore more tools and methodologies are necessary for the systematic engagement of local communities in decision-making processes. 

댓글 없음:

댓글 쓰기