Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Fertö / Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape

Austria, Hungary
Factors affecting the property in 2004*
  • Management systems/ management plan
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2004
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2004**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2004

At the inscription of the property, the Committee encouraged the States Parties to provide within two years of inscription a revised management plan for the enlarged area resulting from the revised boundaries of the cultural landscape. This Management Plan was to reflect the need for management structures to sustain the qualities of the cultural landscape, in particular the settlements around the edge of the lake that were included in the recommendations of ICOMOS. Based on the results of the revised Management Plan an international workshop for the managers of World Heritage properties in the countries of Central-Eastern Europe was held on site from 27 to 30 November 2003, which aimed at exchanging experience and best practice in the preparation and implementation of management plans for these properties.

 

On 12 January 2004 the two States Parties jointly submitted the revised Management Plan to the Centre, which was transmitted to ICOMOS and IUCN for review.

 

ICOMOS reviewed Volume A of the Management Plan that consists of two parts: “Volume A: The Cultural Landscape Management Plan” and “Volume B: The Natural Protection Management Plan”.

 

ICOMOS found that the structure of the plan follows the recommendations, considering the significance and description of the property, its legal and property owner contexts and the vulnerabilities and threats. It furthermore sets out a vision for the future followed by long-term and short and medium-term objectives. These objectives are embedded in terms of the dynamics of the property and refer to processes as much as to cultural assets, which is much to be commended. The social and dynamic nature of the landscape is brought out as a key element of its significance with the objectives covering sustainable approaches to landscape, agriculture, wine production, transport and development as well as addressing public awareness and education. As one of the main opportunities for development is cultural tourism is given detailed attention in the plan.

 

A detailed Action Plan addresses each of the main objectives and specifies the deliverer and the time-frame. Actions cover improvements as well as ways of mitigating former undesirable interventions. Overall the need for public participation and involvement in the plan is stressed. ICOMOS concluded that the overall plan is much to be commended. 

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2004
28 COM 15B.84

The World Heritage Committee [35],

1. Thanking both States Parties for the timely submission of the revised management plan,

2. Commends the Austrian and Hungarian management authorities as well as States Parties for the quality of the revised management plan and the good cooperation process;

3. Encourages the Austrian and Hungarian authorities to continue their cooperation in the implementation of the management plan for this transboundary cultural landscape.

Draft Decision:  28 COM 15B.84

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Thanking both States Parties for the timely submission of the revised management plan,

2.  Commends the Austrian and Hungarian management authorities as well as States Parties for the quality of the revised management plan and the good cooperation process; 

3.  Encourages the Austrian and Hungarian authorities to continue their cooperation in the implementation of the management plan for this trans-boundary cultural landscape.

Report year: 2004
Austria Hungary
Date of Inscription: 2001
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (v)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 28COM (2004)
Exports

* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.


top