Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Cultural Heritage and Value Creation pp 127–169Cite as

The UNESCO World Heritage Convention and the Enhancement of Rural Vine-Growing Landscapes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This essay offers a comparative perspective on the role of UNESCO in the enhancement of rural heritage, particularly the agricultural landscape. From this point of view UNESCO provides a point of reference because, through its context, the concept of culture and the meaning of cultural heritage have become increasingly inclusive. Since 1992 the UNESCO World Heritage Convention has been the main legal instrument for the protection of cultural landscapes, a broad category that includes rural landscapes. In this analysis, we suggest that when considering the concept of cultural landscape, it is not possible to exclude its “cultural heritage” from the living and changing system of which it is a part. In other words, the material dimension of the landscape is linked to cultural traditions, rites and practices, including farming, that determine the evolution of the landscape itself. In its contemporary role, UNESCO aims to preserve all of the components of land by considering the constant interplay between humans and the biosphere. Adopting this approach, the landscape not only becomes a cultural expression or a naturalistic area but also a bio-cultural landscape that reflects the interconnection between nature and culture and the role of these two factors in changes over time.

Although the authors collaborated in this work, Sect. 1, 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.3, 4.4, 5 and 6. were written by Pier Luigi Petrillo; Sects. 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 3. by Ottavio di Bella; and Sects. 3.1, 4, 4.1 and 4.2. by Nicola Di Palo. The Authors thanks Alessandro Zagarella for his considerable contribution and Benedetta De Pietro for translation from Italian to English.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    UNESCO Convention for the protection of cultural properties in the event of armed conflict signed in The Hague 14 May 1954, which is the basis for the whole protection system of cultural properties in event of armed conflict under international law. Already in this Convention, “cultural heritage” are defined as assets (artworks), properties (monuments, buildings and sites), artistic elements (music, dance, theatre) and intangibles elements (such as traditions, rituals, religious beliefs). As highlighted by Jakob 2009, “the action of UNESCO has undoubtedly helped to make the landscape more popular. The heritage of the sites to be preserved at all costs has determined a taking of consciousness and stimulated those spirits eager to bring their favourite landscapes in the world catalogue” (pp. 9–10).

  2. 2.

    Well before of the approval of the European Landscape Convention, signed in Florence October 20 2000 by the members of the Council of Europe and implemented in Italy by Law N. 14, January 9 2006. (See Sciullo 2009, pp. 44 et seq., Priore 2008, and Teofili-Clarino 2008). For a framework of the landscape protection in Italian legal system see also Sandulli 1967.

  3. 3.

    Kuster 2010, p. 38. On this point, see the critical essay by Sereni 2009, passim.

  4. 4.

    Ivi, p. 39.

  5. 5.

    From the preamble of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris, November 16, 1972, http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext.

  6. 6.

    Ibidem.

  7. 7.

    The Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), adopted in London on 16 November 1945, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001337/133729e.pdf#page=7.

  8. 8.

    Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, approved by the 1st session of the World Heritage Committee (Paris, 30 June 1977) and last modified in the 37th World Heritage Committee (Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 16–27 June 2013) with Decision 37COM12.II.

  9. 9.

    The “Statement of Outstanding Universal Value” (SOUV), as indicated by art. 51 and art. 154 of the Operational Guidelines.

  10. 10.

    Focusing its investigation and activities on a concept—the Biosphere Reserve and its related regional and thematic networks—that is internationally recognised in a larger natural district. These sites are indeed developed toward one or more protected areas and the related ecosystem services (according to a “tri-zonation” scheme defined by core, buffer and transition or cooperation zones) and are meant to match conservation functions and policies with sustainable use natural resources, as well as with the respect of traditional productive human activities and local socio-economic needs (see www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme).

  11. 11.

    UNESCO is the depository organisation for the Ramsar treaty, and its Secretariat shares its premises in Gland, Switzerland, with the IUCN, the advisory body of the 1972 Convention for natural World Heritage Sites and nominations, http://www.ramsar.org.

  12. 12.

    Among which, the “Special meeting of experts”, Kazan, Russia, April 6–9 2005, mentioned in the document IUCN 2008.

  13. 13.

    In the meeting mentioned in the previous note.

  14. 14.

    Strongly supported by the Director General of UNESCO for the period 2001–2009, the Japanese Koichiro Matsuura, and regulated by Art. 169 et seq. of the Operational Guidelines.

  15. 15.

    Regulated by arts. 192 et seq. of the Operational Guidelines.

  16. 16.

    For an overview on the activities of the World Heritage Centre, see http://whc.unesco.org/en/134.

  17. 17.

    In Art. 8 par. 3 of the Convention and by Art. 30 et seq. of the Operational Guidelines.

  18. 18.

    Usually, the Committee approves the decision draft as formulated and presented by the advisory bodies; only in a few cases its decisions are dissenting. Notably, since the 34th Committee held in Brasilia in 2010, several sites were registered despite the dissenting opinion of IUCN and ICOMOS. This circumstance created several debates on the reliability of a representative list, which, despite its destination, seems to collect properties whose universal value is not fully proved, thus endangering the reliability of the 1972 Convention.

  19. 19.

    For an overview of the sites registered on the List, see the Convention web site: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list.

  20. 20.

    The 50th one (“Vineyard Landscape of Langhe-Roero and Monferrato”) is scheduled to be inscribed in Doha, in June of 2014, during the 38th World Heritage Committee, http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/38COM. For an overview of the sites inscribed in the World Heritage List, see the Convention web site: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list.

  21. 21.

    Inscribed in the World Heritage List for criterion VIII (Earth’s history and geological features) in June of 2013, during the already mentioned 37th session of the World Heritage Committee held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

  22. 22.

    The need to share the site management and conservation issues and debate with any state party is at the basis of the “Global Strategy for a Representative, Balanced and Credible World Heritage List”. In the Operational Guidelines this principle is reflected, for example, in the priority order of the possible nominations (according to ceiling of the 45 application which can totally be assessed per year) ruled by art. 61 par. 1 letter C. http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/.

  23. 23.

    See arts. 87 et seq.

  24. 24.

    Including, in both cases, the mixed sites, that is to say, those recognised for both natural and cultural criteria.

  25. 25.

    As provided by art. 152 of the Operation Guidelines. According to art. 158, the nominations rejected by the World Heritage Committee cannot be presented again, excepting exceptional circumstances, or “new discoveries, new scientific information about the property, or different criteria not presented in the original nomination”.

  26. 26.

    As provided by art. 128 of the Operational Guidelines.

  27. 27.

    In particular arts. 177 at seq. that, implementing art. 11 par. 4 of the 1972 Convention, provide the institution of the so-called List of World Heritage in Danger and identify twelve cases of “actual damage” and “potential damage” for cultural sites and seven for natural sites.

  28. 28.

    See 31 World Heritage Committee, Christchurch, 23 June–2 July 2007, http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/31COM.

  29. 29.

    See decision n. 31COM 7B.11 by 31st Committee, document WHC.07/31.COM/24.

  30. 30.

    See 33rd World Heritage Committee, Seville, 22–30 June 2009, http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/33COM.

  31. 31.

    See decision n. 33COM8C.3, document WHC.09/33.COM/20.

  32. 32.

    For a complete reconstruction of this complex affair, see Petrillo 2008, pp. 155 et seq. in MiBAC, Tutela e conservazione dei beni culturali e naturali e del paesaggio 2008; for a view on the relationship amid territorial Authorities see Amorosino 2008 pp. 33 et seq.

  33. 33.

    The close link between landscape and identity has been formalised by the Code of Cultural properties, that at 131 par. 1 defines landscape as that “territory expression of identity, which nature comes from the action of natural and human elements and their interrelation”; see Ciaglia 2009. This definition follows, not for a coincidence, the one given by the European Convention on landscape that, at art. 1, defines landscape as “a specific area of a territory as it is perceived by the populations, whose character comes from the action of natural and/or human factors and from their interrelation”. See Amorosino 2010, pp. 62–63. See also the valid and penetrating analyses, even if conducted on a National level, by Predieri 1981, passim. Underlining the close correlation, between landscape and identity, see Carpentieri 2007, pp. 135 et seq., Cartei 2007, and Boscolo 2009, pp. 57 et seq. In a comparative perspective see Daniels 1993.

  34. 34.

    See Mechtild 1996, p. 7.

  35. 35.

    The “Asian Rice Culture and its Terraced Landscapes” was held in Manila, 28 March–4 April 1995. See http://whc.unesco.org/archive/rice95.htm and “Asian Rice Culture and its Terraced Landscapes”, in Report of the regional thematic study meeting, [WHC-95/CONF.203/INF.8].

  36. 36.

    See Dr. Mechtild 1996, p. 7. For an analysis of the definition of landscape and its elements see also Roger 1997 and Colantonio Venturelli 2006.

  37. 37.

    See information document: World Heritage thematic expert meeting on vineyard cultural landscapes (Tokai, Hungary, 11–14 July 2001) [WHC-01/CONF.208/INF.7] in http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2001/whc-01-conf208-inf7e.pdf.

  38. 38.

    Some proposals deserve to be mentioned among those submitted during the meetings: the first, concerning a wine itinerary through the World Heritage sites; another one, concerning the achievement of a GIS system for monitoring sites periodically; on the introduction of new technologies and production methods; on the establishment of schools for exchanging and transmitting knowledge from one generation to another; on the long-term planning related to the vine cultivation and the production of its by-products. Moreover, it highlighted the difficulty of clearly identifying the protected areas. For this reason, it was difficult to mark the perimeter of the site to gain the “appelation d’origine” (AdO). This issue must be evaluated in a context that also considers the social structure and the cultural background of the various territories.

  39. 39.

    Saint Emilion Patrimoine Mondial de l’UNESCO, pp. 45–60.

  40. 40.

    Saint Emilion Patrimoine Mondial de l’UNESCO, pp. 63–72.

  41. 41.

    Advisory Body Evaluation, Saint Emilion, France, n. 932, p. 191. http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/932.pdf.

  42. 42.

    Report WHC-99/CONF.209/22, 2000, p. 21.

  43. 43.

    Nomination of “Alto Douro Wine Region” in the World Heritage List, June 2000, pp. 12–14.

  44. 44.

    Ivi, p. 5.

  45. 45.

    Ibidem.

  46. 46.

    Advisory Body Evaluation, Alto Douro, Portugal, n. 1046, pp. 5–7.

  47. 47.

    Report WHC-99/CONF.209/22, Paris, March 2 2000, p. 21.

  48. 48.

    Documentation for the nomination of the “Cultural Landscape Of Tokaji Wine Region”, study based on various contributions, compiled by VÁTI KHT—Budapest, commissioned by the Hungarian Ministry of Environment Protection, Authority for Nature Conservation, Budapest 2000, pp. 16–19.

  49. 49.

    Advisory Body Evaluation, “Tokaji Wine Region” (Hungary), N. 1063, April 2002, p. 20.

  50. 50.

    Ibidem.

  51. 51.

    Report WHC-02/CONF.202/25, Paris, 1 August 2002, pp. 61–62.

  52. 52.

    Report WHC-03/27.COM/24, 2003, pp. 102–176.

  53. 53.

    Report WHC-08/32.COM/24Rev, 2009, p. 120.

  54. 54.

    Report WHC-09/33.COM/20, pp. 141–142.

  55. 55.

    http://whc.unesco.org/en/events/489.

  56. 56.

    The Committee “also requests that state parties implement a participatory process involving all key stakeholders associated with the conservation and management of the property, in order to raise the profile of the agro-pastoralism system and consider ways of sustaining and supporting it as a key part of the Outstanding Universal Value of the cultural landscape” in Decisions report of the 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008), WHC-08/32.COM/24, p. 79.

  57. 57.

    Among the agro-pastoral sites in the tentative list of some states, it is possible to mention: “Plasencia, Monfragüe, Trujillo: Mediterranean landscape” (Spain, registered on February 3, 2009); “Mercantour–Maritime Alps” (France and Italy, February, 1 2002); “La Transumanza: i Regi Tratturi” (Italy, June 1, 2006).

  58. 58.

    Completed by 2012. Moreover, the Mediterranean Agronomic Institute of Montpellier (IAMM) was chosen as the institutional body to publish and distribute documents related to the agro-pastoral issue. These documents can be found on the site: http://resopasto.iamm.fr.

  59. 59.

    Decision 30 COM 8B.44.

  60. 60.

    Decision 33 COM 8B.32.

  61. 61.

    FAO, Agricultural biodiversity in FAO 2008, p. 5.

  62. 62.

    Suffice it say that, in this period, Italy went from 22 to 44 sites registered in the UNESCO World Tangible Heritage of Humanity, thanks to the work of the UNESCO Office of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities, coordinated by Manuel Guido. However, it must be highlighted that the group has never directly evaluated the nomination dossiers for the list of the 1972 Convention. Those dossiers, indeed, have always been prepared by the single administration for the subject and then directly conveyed to the permanent representation of Italy to UNESCO. In only a few cases, the working group was informed and the National Commission generally ignored.

  63. 63.

    See Decree of the Ministry of Culture, March 13 2009.

  64. 64.

    Compared with the previous decree, the main differences are the one-third reduction of its members and a composition that could better Italy’s challenges and duties within UNESCO.

  65. 65.

    See art. 1, Ministerial Decree n. 203, July 2, 2008.

  66. 66.

    The previous ministerial decree, n. 243, November 6, 2006, is substantially equivalent to that in force at the present time. Conversely, decree n. 100 of October 12, 2004, which created for the first time a working group for the UNESCO World Heritage List, contains different norms: according to art. 3, it is possible to consult external experts, able to report on the functioning methods of the evaluation bodies, to guarantee a more effective submission of Italian nominations.

  67. 67.

    The group underwent various changes in its composition, although functions and tasks remained the same, as provided by the Ministerial Decree n. 6815, July 8 2011.

  68. 68.

    http://www.politicheagricole.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/823.

  69. 69.

    Advisory body evaluation, World Heritage List, Portovenere/Cinque Terre N. 826, p. 128.

  70. 70.

    Ibidem.

  71. 71.

    Ivi, pp. 130–131.

  72. 72.

    Report WHC-97/CONF.208/17, 1998, p. 48.

  73. 73.

    The project “The Transhumance Marathon” was financed by the EC within the Transnational Cooperation Programme Leader Plus Asse II. It consisted in various events aiming to promote and enhance the practices related to sheep-breeding. In Italy it took place in Campobasso on 26–29 June 2009.

  74. 74.

    MiBAC 2009, Archeologia, Archeologia XII Edizione Borsa Mediterranea del Turismo Archeologico, pp. 42–57.

  75. 75.

    http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/stat/#s7.

  76. 76.

    UNEP 2007, p. 160.

  77. 77.

    See Harmon 2002, pp. 121 et seq.

  78. 78.

    Maffi 2010a. See also Maffi 2001, p. 24; for a case study by the same author see Maffi 2010b.

  79. 79.

    Ibidem.

References

  • (2008) Tutela e conservazione dei beni culturali e naturali e del paesaggio. Tipografica Ostiense, Ministero dei Beni Culturali, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Amorosino S (2008) Il governo dei sistemi territoriali. Cedam, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • Amorosino S (2010) Introduzione al diritto del paesaggio. Laterza, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Boscolo E (2009) La nozione giuridica di paesaggio identitario ed il paesaggio a strati. Rivista giuridica dell’Urbanistica 1–2:57–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke E (1998) Inchiesta sul bello e il sublime. Ed. Aesthetica, Palermo

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpentieri P (2007) Regime dei vincoli e Convenzione europea. In: Cartei GF (ed) Convenzione europea del paesaggio e governo del territorio. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartei GF (ed) (2007) Convenzione europea del paesaggio e governo del territorio. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciaglia G (2009) La nuova disciplina del paesaggio: tutela e valorizzazione dei beni paesaggistici dopo il D.Lgs. n. 63/2008. Ipsoa, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Colantonio Venturelli R (2006) Il paesaggio: concetto ed espressione fisica. Nuova informazione bibliografica 3–4:637–652

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniels S (1993) Fields of vision: landscape imagery and national identity in England and United States. University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2008) Agricultural biodiversity in FAO. Roma. ftp://www.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/i0112e/i0112e.pdf

  • Harmon D (2002) In light of our differences, how diversity in nature and culture makes us human. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakob M (2009) Il paesaggio. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuster H (2010) Piccola storia del paesaggio. Donzelli, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Maffi L (2001) Linking language and environment: a co-evolutionary perspective. In: Crumley CL (ed) New directions in anthropology and environment: intersections. AltaMira, Walnut Creek

    Google Scholar 

  • Maffi L (2010a) La perdita della diversità bioculturale. In: Eldredge N, Pievani T (eds) Il Futuro della Terra. UTET, Torino

    Google Scholar 

  • Maffi L (2010b) Storia di un territorio rurale. Vigne e Vini nell’Oltrepò Pavese. Ambiente, società ed economia. Franco Angeli, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Metchild R (1996) Unesco world heritage centre background document on UNESCO world heritage cultural landscape. In: FAO workshop and steering committee meeting of the GIAHS project: globally important ingenious agricultural heritage system in meeting on European cultural landscapes of outstanding universal value, Vienna, Austria, 21 April 1996

    Google Scholar 

  • MiBAC (2009) Archeologia: tutela, fruizione e valorizzazione, pubblicato in occasione della XII Edizione Borsa Mediterranea del Turismo Archeologico

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrillo PL (2008) Il patrimonio naturalistico italiano e l’UNESCO: l’esperienza del Ministero dell’Ambiente tra criticità e soluzioni partecipate In: Tutela e conservazione dei beni culturali e naturali e del paesaggio. Tipografica Ostiense, Ministero dei Beni Culturali, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Predieri A (1981) Paesaggio. Enciclopedia del diritto. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Priore R (2008) Una sfida: l’applicazione della Convenzione Europea del Paesaggio in Italia. In: Teofili C, Clarino R (eds) Riconquistare il paesaggio, la Convenzione europea del paesaggio e la conservazione della biodiversità in Italia. WWF Italia, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Roger A (1997) Breve trattato sul paesaggio. ed. Sellerio, Palermo

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandulli AM (1967) La tutela del paesaggio nella Costituzione. Rivista giuridica dell’Edilizia 2:3–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciullo G (2009) Il paesaggio fra la Convenzione e il Codice. Rivista giuridica dell’urbanistica 1–2:44–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Sereni E (2009) Storia del paesaggio agrario italiano. Laterza, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Teofili C, Clarino R (ed) (2008) Riconquistare il paesaggio, la Convenzione europea del paesaggio e la conservazione della biodiversità in Italia. WWF Italia, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP (2007) Global Environment Outlook (GEO-4)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unitelma Sapienza, Viale Regina Elena 295, 00161, Rome, Italy

    Pier Luigi Petrillo

  2. CUEIM, Consorzio Universitario di Economia Industriale e Manageriale, Via della Sforzesca 1, 00185, Rome, Italy

    Ottavio Di Bella & Nicola Di Palo

Authors
  1. Pier Luigi Petrillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ottavio Di Bella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicola Di Palo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pier Luigi Petrillo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Gaetano M. Golinelli

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Sitography

http://whc.unesco.org/en/conventiontext/

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf

http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/34COM

http://whc.unesco.org/en/134

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list

http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/31COM

http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/33COM

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/932.pdf

http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/2643

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/decrec03.htm

http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/31COM

http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/32COM

http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/37COM

http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/38COM

http://whc.unesco.org/en/events/489

http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_07_en.pdf

http://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/

http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1046.pdf

http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/932.pdf

http://resopasto.iamm.fr

www.countdown2010.net

xww.iucn.org

www.politicheagricole.gov.it/unesco

www.ramsar.org

www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/

1.2 Documents

Advisory Body evaluation, World Heritage List, Portovenere/Cinque Terre N. 826.

Advisory Body Evaluation, Saint Emilion, France, n. 932.

Advisory Body Evaluation, Alto Douro, Portugal, n. 1046.

Advisory Body Evaluation, “Tokaji Wine Region” (Hungary), N. 1063, Aprile 2002.

Asian Rice Culture and its Terraced Landscapes, in http://whc.unesco.org/archive/rice95.htm.

Asian Rice Culture and its Terraced Landscapes, in Report of the regional thematic study meeting [WHC-95/CONF.203/INF.8].

Documentation for the nomination of the “Cultural Landscape Of Tokaji Wine Region”, Study based on various contributions, Compiled by VÁTI KHT—Budapest, commissioned by the Hungarian Ministry of Environment Protection, Authority for Nature Conservation, Budapest, 2000.

Nomination of “Alto Douro Wine Region” in the World Heritage List, Giugno 2000. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1046.pdf.

Information document: World Heritage Thematic expert meeting on Vineyard Cultural Landscapes (Tokai, Hungary, 11–14 July 2001) [WHC-01/CONF.208/INF.7].

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, WHC/08/01, gennaio 2008.

Documento IUCN “Outstanding Universal Value Standards for Natural World Heritage A Compendium on Standards for inscriptions of Natural Properties on the World Heritage List”, 2008.

Report WHC-97/CONF.208/17, Parigi, 27 Febbraio 1998.

Report WHC-99/CONF.209/22, Parigi, 2 Marzo 2000.

Report WHC-01/CONF.208/24, Parigi, 8 Febbraio 2002.

Report WHC-02/CONF.202/25, Paris, 1 August 2002.

Report WHC-09/33.COM/20.

1.3 Legislation

Decreto Legislativo del 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42 Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio.

Decreto Legislativo del 3 aprile 2006 n. 152 Norme in materia ambientale (Codice dell’Ambiente).

Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 12 luglio 1949, n. 970 che dà esecuzione al D.L. 29 ottobre 1947, n. 1558, che autorizza l’adesione dell’Italia alla Convenzione di Londra del 16 novembre 1945, relativa alla costituzione dell’Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite per l’Educazione, la Scienza e la Cultura e, in particolare, l’art. VII di detta Convenzione.

Decreto Interministeriale dell’11 febbraio 1950 istitutivo della Commissione Nazionale Italiana per l’UNESCO.

Legge 6 aprile 1977, n. 184 Ratifica ed esecuzione della convenzione sulla protezione del patrimonio culturale e naturale mondiale, firmata a Parigi il 23 novembre 1972

Decreto legislativo del 30 aprile 1998, n. 173 Disposizioni in materia di contenimento dei costi di produzione e per il rafforzamento strutturale delle imprese agricole, a norma dell’articolo 55, commi 14 e 15, della legge 27 dicembre 1997, n. 449.

Legge 23 dicembre 2000, n. 388 Disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello Stato (legge finanziaria 2001).

Decreto del Ministro dell’Ambiente del 12 ottobre 2004, n.100.

Decreto del Ministro dell’Ambiente del 6 novembre 2006, n. 243.

Decreto Interministeriale del 24 maggio 2007.

Decreto del Ministro dell’Ambiente del 2 luglio 2008, n. 203.

Decreto del Ministro dei Beni Culturali del 13 marzo 2009.

Decreto del Ministro delle Politiche Agricole del 12 giugno 2009, n. 15147.

Decreto del Ministro delle Politiche Agricole del 18 ottobre 2010, n. 9231.

Decreto del Ministro delle Politiche Agricole dell’8 luglio 2011, n. 6815.

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Paris, 16 November 1972.

Decision 30 COM 8B.44, in Decisions adopted of the 30th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2006 of the 1972 UNESCO Convention.

Decision 33 COM 8B.32 in Decisions adopted of the 33rd session of the World Heritage Committee in 2009 of the 1972 UNESCO Convention.

Decision 35 COM13. in Decisions adopted of the 35th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2011 of the 1972 UNESCO Convention—amendments to the document Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, http://whc.unesco.org/en/Guidelines.

Decision n. 31COM7B.11 in Decisions adopted of the 31st session of the World Heritage Committee in 2007 of the 1972 UNESCO Convention, document WHC.07/31.COM/24.

Decision n. 33COM8C.3 in Decisions adopted of the 33rd session of the World Heritage Committee in 2009 of the 1972 UNESCO Convention, document WHC.09/33.COM/20.

Decisions adopted of the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 of the 1972 UNESCO Convention Quebec City, 2008), document WHC-08/32.COM/24Rev, 31 March 2009.

Decisions adopted of the 27th session of the World Heritage Committee in 2003 of the 1972 UNESCO Convention, document WHC-03/27.COM/24, Paris, 10 December 2003.

Decisions report in Decisions adopted of the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee in 2008 of the 1972 UNESCO Convention, document WHC-08/32.COM/24.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Petrillo, P.L., Di Bella, O., Di Palo, N. (2015). The UNESCO World Heritage Convention and the Enhancement of Rural Vine-Growing Landscapes. In: Golinelli, G. (eds) Cultural Heritage and Value Creation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08527-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation