5. Worldcultural andnaturalheritage
A5-0382/2000
European Parliament resolution on the application of the Convention Concerning the Protection
of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Member States of the European Union (2000/
2036(INI))
The European Parliament,
Sdash having regard to the EC Treaty, and in particular Articles 151 and 5 thereof,Sdash having regard to the motion for resolution tabled by Rosa MiguélezRamos on the recognition of the
cultural heritage status of city walls in the EU (B5-0362/1999),
Sdash having regard to its earlier resolutions of 13 May 1974 on the protection of the European cultural
heritage(
1), 14 September 1982 on the protection of the architectural and archaeological heritage(2),
28 October 1988 on the conservation of the Community’s architectural and archaeological heritage(3)
and 12 February 1993 on preserving the architectural heritage and protecting cultural assets(4),
Sdash having regard to Decision 2228/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October
1997 establishing a Community Action Programme in the field of cultural heritage (the Raphael pro-gramme)(
5),
Sdash having regard to Decision No 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 Feb-
ruary 2000 establishing the Culture 2000 programme(6),
Sdash having regard to the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heri-
tage, adopted by the Unesco General Conference on 16 November 1972,
Sdash having regard to Petition 776/1999,Sdash having regard to Rule 163 of its Rules of Procedure,Sdash having regard to the report of the Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport and
the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (A5-0382/2000),
A. whereas heritage is a key element in our societies’ identity and historical development, as is shown by
the etymology of the French patrimoine from the Latin patrimonium , meaning a joint asset comprising
land and house, which the owner takes over on the understanding that he will maintain it and pass iton undivided to his descendants,
B. having regard to the importance of cultural and natural heritage both as an economic factor and as a
factor in social integration and citizenship,
C. whereas the EU has committed itself to working towards the development of an open and diverse
cultural area shared by the peoples of Europe, in accordance with the subsidiarity principle, the pro-motion of a legal framework favouring cultural activities and guaranteeing respect for cultural diver-sity,
D. whereas the ‘Culture 2000’ programme, the only programme in operation with effect from 2000 in
the cultural sector, has been opened up to joint activities with the relevant international organisationsin the cultural sphere, such as Unesco and the Council of Europe,
(1) OJ C 62, 30.5.1974, p. 5.
(2) OJ C 267, 11.10.1982, p. 25.
(3) OJ C 309, 5.12.1988, p. 423.
(4) OJ C 72, 15.3.1993, p. 160.
(5) OJ L 305, 8.11.1997, p. 31.
(6) OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, p. 1.C 262/48 EN 18.9.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday16January2001
E. having regard to the inestimable and irreplaceable value of cultural and natural heritage, which under-
lies many existing international conventions, recommendations and resolutions, including the above-mentioned 1972 Unesco Convention,
F. whereas 208 sites within the European Union have so far been placed on the World Heritage list, as
follows: 6 in Austria, 8 in Belgium, 2 in Denmark, 5 in Finland, 26 in France, 24 in Germany, 16 inGreece, 2 in Ireland, 33 in Italy, 1 in Luxembourg, 7 in the Netherlands, 10 in Portugal, 35 in Spain,11 in Sweden, 20 in the United Kingdom, and finally 1 site belonging jointly to France and Spain and1 site belonging jointly to the Holy See and Italy,
G. whereas there are 690 classified sites in the world, 208 of them in the European Union, which thus
accounts for 30% of all World Heritage Sites,
H. whereas, of these 208 sites in the 15 countries of the European Union, 192 are cultural, 11 natural
and 5 mixed, and whereas there are fewer natural sites in Europe than in the rest of the world, wherethey are already under-represented,
I. whereas in 1994, in the context of the global strategy adopted by the World Heritage Committee,
a number of imbalances were identified on the World Heritage List, including the over-representationof the European continent in relation to the rest of the world, the over-representation of historictowns and religious buildings as compared with other categories, the over-representation of Christian-ity in relation to other religions and beliefs, the over-representation of historic periods in relation toprehistory and the 20th century, and finally the over-representation of ‘elitist’ as opposed to vernacu-lar architecture,
J. whereas the widening of the notion of heritage has led to the identification of new types of heritage
assets such as factories, machines, lost trades, and even local recipes, and whereas that widening mustnot exclude any type of asset which may be classified as belonging to cultural heritage, such as light-houses or underwater heritage, for example,
K. whereas the notion of cultural and natural heritage should embrace the preservation of linguistic di-
versity including notably regional and minority languages,
L. whereas it is important to guarantee the representative nature of the World Heritage List, and whereas
only the political will of the signatory States can guarantee that this is achieved,
M. whereas the tentative lists make it possible to assess the value of sites proposed for inclusion and to
reduce the imbalances on the World Heritage List,
N. whereas ‘conservation professional’ is not yet a recognised trade in any of the Member States in terms
either of training or of access to the profession,
O. whereas the European Convention on the countryside, which is currently being ratified, is intended to
create a European countryside label and may possibly lead to the creation of a list of European land-scapes,
P. whereas the inclusion of a site on a list implies responsibility for maintenance of the site, and whereas
under the terms of Article 29 of the abovementioned Unesco Convention, the State parties to theConvention are to prepare regular reports on the legislative and administrative provisions which theyhave adopted and other action which they have taken for the application of this Convention, togetherwith details of the experience they have acquired in this field,
Q. whereas it is important to preserve the cultural heritage of many developing countries, and whereas
problems exist in those countries with the recognition, description and conservation of cultural assets,
1. Considers that the over-representation of European sites on the World Heritage List can be explained
partly by the major worldwide influence which Europe has had on the development of civilisation, and itseffective heritage-conservation work, but also partly by the very way in which the selection criteria weredefined, based on a mainly monumental approach defined by reference to a European concept of heritage,and also by the fact that less-developed countries were unintentionally but automatically penalised by theconstraints of preparing application files;18.9.2001 EN C 262/49 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday16January2001
2. Recommends the Member States to encourage non-European countries to complete the lists of their
natural and cultural heritage assets and to provide appropriate practical assistance to those countries underUnesco;
3. Condemns the alarming and devastating plundering of archaeological finds which is occurring in
many such countries and calls on the Member States to use all the means available to them at bothnational and Community level in order to stamp out the growing illegal trade in such finds within thecountries of the European Union;
4. Calls on the Member States of the European Union to reconsider their Tentative List in the light of
examples such as the exhaustive topic-based list of heritage resources adopted by the United Kingdom;
5. Considers that it would be useful for a meeting of the Council of the relevant ministers to be held to
effect this harmonisation;
6. Considers that the Member States of the European Union might be encouraged to study with the
Council of Europe the possibility of a European heritage classification system, based on common defini-tions and identification systems, making it possible to identify cultural, linguistic and natural heritage siteswhich are of more than mere national interest and to accord such sites a recognisable European label, aclassification which could help highlight the diversity and wealth of European heritage while stressing itscommon character;
7. Calls on the national authorities of the Member States and the respective local government bodies to
constrain any development initiative in regions with a vulnerable cultural and natural environment toprotect the treasures of cultural heritage and the balance of the natural environment in each region;
8. Regards natural, architectural, urban and rural heritage as an indivisible whole, requiring the drawing
up of joint protective measures;
9. Ask that when proper models of sustainable development and sustainable towns are being developed
and approved, architectural, archaeological, natural and cultural heritage both in urban and rural settingsbe included;
10. Considers that young people, who are the Union’s future, can perform an important role in protect-
ing the cultural and natural heritage of the Union, and that the Commission and the Member States shouldtherefore support young people’s voluntary activities in this sector;
11. Calls on the Commission to implement all possible forms of cooperation and consultation with
Unesco and the Council of Europe, while respecting the specific features of each institution and avoidingduplication;
12. Calls on the Commission to simplify consultation between Member States’ representatives, so as to
reach common positions in the various bodies of the Council of Europe and Unesco;
13. Calls on the Commission, Council and especially the Member States to ensure compliance with
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public andprivate projects on the environment(
1) (EIA Directive) and to implement rigorously the provisions of Ar-
ticle 3 and Annexes I and II thereof with regard to the assessment of the impact on cultural heritage ofcertain public and private projects, demanding that it be afforded the same respect as other non-renewableresources;
14. Considers that, when environmental policies are being implemented, the visual impact on artistic
heritage and the countryside must be taken into account; believes that, in this context, as stipulated inArticle 3 of the Directive, attention should be drawn once again to the importance of all public or private
projects being accompanied by the corresponding impact assessment, in particular an assessment of the
visual impact and impact on the landscape;
15. Calls on the Commission to define and develop the variables and indicators which make up urban
cultural heritage;
(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.C 262/50 EN 18.9.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday16January2001
16. Calls on the Commission to draw up a study on the situation of ‘conservation professionals’ in the
Member States, so as to encourage the latter to organise the profession at various training levels withmutual recognition of diplomas with the aim of ensuring the quality of heritage restoration work;
17. Calls on the Commission within the framework of training programmes to devote particular atten-
tion to arts and crafts and to take practical measures to preserve and transmit rare professional skills in
this field to future generations;
18. Calls on the Member States to promote the establishment of regional training centres in the field of
the protection, conservation and promotion of cultural and natural heritage;
19. Calls on the Commission to assist, within existing programmes, developing countries which are
facing problems with the recognition, description and conservation of cultural assets;
20. Calls on the Commission to promote, by means of specific measures within existing programmes
targeting businesses, initiatives seeking to support crafts, particularly those whose existence is threatened,which are essential to the proper restoration and maintenance of heritage;
21. Calls on the Commission to strengthen programmes to aid the training of professionals working in
the field of conservation of cultural heritage, in the belief that increased restoration of places of interestand improved care of our heritage might provide a sound basis for the promotion of new jobs in theEuropean Union;
22. Approves the fact that 34% of the total budget earmarked for the ‘Culture 2000’ programme has
been allocated to heritage in the broad sense: intellectual and non-intellectual heritage, moveable andimmovable heritage (museums and collections, libraries, archives, including photographic and audio-visualarchives relating to cultural works), archaeological and underwater heritage, architectural heritage and allcultural sites and landscapes (cultural and natural properties);
23. Calls on the Commission, before approving projects financed by the Structural Funds, to examine
the impact they may have on the cultural and natural heritage in the Member States of the Union;
24. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to study, in cooperation with Unesco and the
Council of Europe, the viability of an international legal and fiscal framework, which would facilitateforms of sponsorship relating to the conservation of cultural and natural heritage;
25. Considers that a task force comprising representatives of the European Parliament, the Commission,
the Council of Europe and Unesco could be set up for this purpose;
26. Calls on the Member States to contribute to the dissemination of information and the publication of
discussion documents on experience gained and research undertaken in connection with the conservationand restoration of cultural, linguistic and natural heritage;
27. Draws particular attention to the irreparable damage being done to our archaeological heritage by
the building of high-rise buildings on ancient remains and points out that development is not incompatiblewith the protection of archaeological sites and their restoration to the public;
28. Points out that rural heritage is a tapestry of landscapes, sites, habitats and specific areas, such as
wetlands and ancient forests and hedgerows, and calls on the Commission and Council to enforce direc-tives and promote good practice in this area; similar attention should be paid to Europe’s mountain areas,whose importance has already been recognised in the Alpine Convention;:
29. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to ensure that no public or private project under-
taken on Community territory is supported by Community funds if it is shown that its completion wouldentail the destruction of valuable cultural, historical or artistic heritage;18.9.2001 EN C 262/51 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday16January2001
30. Calls on the Commission to speed up the consideration and investigation of complaints which it
receives regarding breaches of the EIA Directive, as well as infringement proceedings, where appropriate,with a view to guaranteeing protection for cultural heritage which may be under threat;
31. Calls on the Member States to encourage, from primary level upwards, the raising of pupils’ aware-
ness of aspects relating to the protection and preservation of cultural, linguistic and natural heritage;
32. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission, the governments
of the Member States, the Council of Europe and Unesco.
6. 1997discharge
A5-0397/2000
European Parliament resolution on the Commission report on the measures taken in the light of
the observations of the European Parliament in its 1997 discharge resolution (COM(2000) 224 7dash
C5-0223/20007dash2000/2113(DEC))
The European Parliament,
Sdash having regard to its resolution of 19 January 2000 containing the comments which form an integral
part of the decision giving discharge to the Commission for the implementation of the general budgetof the European Union for the 1997 financial year(
1),
Sdash having regard to the Commission follow-up report (COM(2000) 224 Sdash C5-0223/2000),
Sdash having regard to Article 89(8) of the Financial Regulation,Sdash having regard to Annex V, Article 6 of its Rules of Procedure,
Sdash having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A5-0397/2000),
A. whereas Parliament decided to postpone discharge for the 1997 financial year pending commitments
from the Commission regarding reform,
B. whereas Parliament called on the Commission to address problems relating to eight areas, namely, the
closure of accounts, institutional management and supervision, staff policy, Technical AssistanceOffices (TAOs), the discharge authority’s access to information, management of Community policiesin partnership (SEM2000), combating fraud and corruption and the delivery of external aid, includingthat provided to Palestine,
C. whereas Parliament made three requests to the European Court of Auditors, namely to monitor sys-
tematically responses to previous criticisms, to draw up common agreements with national courts ofauditors in order to carry out complementary checks on Community policies, and to assess the policyof administrative decentralisation,
D. whereas Parliament called on its Secretary-General and its Constitutional Affairs Committee, in their
respective areas, to create appropriate general procedures for the handling of confidential documents,
E. whereas Parliament reserves the right to return to appraise progress by the Commission, the Court of
Auditors and the Secretary-General of Parliament under the forthcoming discharge procedure,
(1) OJ L 45, 17.2.2000, p. 37.C 262/52 EN 18.9.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Tuesday16January2001