Decision 33 COM 7A.26: Deletion of the Dresden Elbe Valley from the World Heritage List (2009), and the preceding Danger List decisions (2006-2008)

Summary

The Dresden Elbe Valley, Germany, was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2004. In 2006 the World Heritage Committee (30th session, Vilnius), in Decision 30 COM 7B.77, found that the planned Waldschlösschen Bridge, a four-lane crossing inside the property's core zone, 'would irreversibly damage the values and integrity of the property', asked for the project to be halted and inscribed the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The City of Dresden told UNESCO that the project followed a citizens' referendum; a court in Bautzen concluded, in a decision the World Heritage Centre received on 13 March 2007, that the public vote had to be implemented. The Committee kept the property on the Danger List in 2007 (31 COM 7A.27) and 2008 (32 COM 7A.26), warning in 2007 that it would be deleted if bridge construction had an irreversible impact on the property's Outstanding Universal Value, and in 2008 that deletion would follow in 2009 if works continued and the damage was not reversed. Construction began in August 2007. On 25 June 2009 at its 33rd session in Seville the Committee, in Decision 33 COM 7A.26, decided to delete the property from the World Heritage List and, in Decision 33 COM 8C.3, removed it from the Danger List. UNESCO describes it as the second property ever deleted from the List. The German Foreign Office said it regretted the decision.

Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Auswärtiges Amt (German Federal Foreign Office)

Legal basis

The World Heritage Convention (1972) is the treaty read for this entry. Article 4 says the duty of ensuring the protection and conservation of the heritage on its territory 'belongs primarily to that State'. Article 6(1) says the States Parties recognise that such heritage is a world heritage 'for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate'. Article 11(4) provides for a list of World Heritage in Danger, which may include only property 'threatened by serious and specific dangers'; Article 11(5) says the Committee defines the criteria for inclusion in either list. The Danger List decisions were taken under these provisions as applied by the Committee. The Convention articles read contain no provision on deleting a property from the World Heritage List; the Committee's decisions cite the Operational Guidelines (Decision 30 COM 7B.77 cites paragraph 179(b) of the Operational Guidelines for its finding of irreversible damage, 31 COM 7A.27 cites paragraphs 192-198 of the Operational Guidelines for its decision to delete the property if the bridge had an irreversible impact, and 33 COM 7A.26 refers to Section III of the Operational Guidelines for a new nomination). The text of the Operational Guidelines was not read for this entry, so the Guidelines' wording on deletion is not stated here. Decision 33 COM 7A.26 recalls Article 6(1) and the State Party's obligation to protect and conserve the heritage on its territory, and notes 'with deep regret' that the State Party could not fulfil its Convention obligations.

Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre

Outcome

(1) Decision 30 COM 7B.77 (30th session, Vilnius, 2006): found that the bridge would irreversibly damage the values and integrity of the property, requested the State Party and City authorities to urgently halt the project, and decided to inscribe the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger, with a view to considering delisting at the 31st session in 2007 'if the plans are carried out'. (2) Decision 31 COM 7A.27 (31st session, Christchurch, 2007): asked the State Party to continue its efforts to find a solution, applied reinforced monitoring, retained the property on the Danger List, and decided to delete it if bridge construction had an irreversible impact on its Outstanding Universal Value. (3) Decision 32 COM 7A.26 (32nd session, Quebec City, 2008): regretted that construction had proceeded, strongly requested an immediate halt and urged reconsideration of the tunnel option, retained the property on the Danger List, and warned of deletion in 2009 if works continued and the damage was not reversed. (4) Decision 33 COM 7A.26 (33rd session, Seville, 2009): 'Decides to delete the Dresden Elbe Valley (Germany) from the World Heritage List'; it regretted that the Committee's requests had failed to protect the property and that the project had not been halted and the damage not reversed, noted the State Party's commitment to explore options to preserve the Outstanding Universal Value, and considered that a new nomination for Dresden's heritage could be envisaged under Section III of the Operational Guidelines. (5) Decision 33 COM 8C.3 (same session): removed the Dresden Elbe Valley from the List of World Heritage in Danger. The sources read do not state whether the 2009 decisions were taken by vote or consensus, and do not state the days on which the 2006-2008 decisions were adopted.

Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre

Timeline

1. 2004
   Dresden Elbe Valley inscribed on the World Heritage List

   UNESCO's 2009 news item states the property was inscribed in 2004. Decision 30 COM 7B.77 recalls the 2004 inscription as a cultural landscape.

   Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre

2. 2005
   Dresden citizens' referendum on the Waldschlösschen Bridge

   Sabine von Schorlemer (src_12) refers to the 2005 Dresden citizens' referendum on the bridge, with a binding force of three years; she gives no vote count. UNESCO's 2006 report records the City of Dresden's statement that the bridge project followed an international architectural competition and 'a referendum of the citizens of Dresden' that approved it. The UNESCO documents read give no date or result for the vote.

   Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Vereinte Nationen 4/2009 (German UN Association), Sabine von Schorlemer

3. 10 January 2006
   ICOMOS comments on the planned bridge

   UNESCO's 2006 report records that on 10 January 2006 ICOMOS said the crossing was 'no longer an urban bridge' and would considerably disturb the property, and called for a pause and for alternatives including a tunnel. The report also records an independent visual impact study by RWTH Aachen, received by the World Heritage Centre in April 2006, and the City of Dresden's statement that traffic assessments showed a need for an additional river crossing.

   Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre

4. 2006
   30th session (Vilnius): Decision 30 COM 7B.77 inscribes the property on the Danger List

   The Committee found, citing paragraph 179(b) of the Operational Guidelines, that the bridge 'would irreversibly damage the values and integrity of the property'. It 'Requests the State Party and the City authorities to urgently halt this construction project' and 'Decides to inscribe the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger', with a view to considering delisting at its 31st session in 2007 'if the plans are carried out'. The adopted decision notes that the City had suspended the project until the session.

   Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre

5. 13 March 2007
   World Heritage Centre receives the decision of the Bautzen court

   UNESCO's 2007 report states that on 13 March 2007 the Centre 'received the decision of the court case in Bautzen (Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht)' in a case between the City of Dresden and the Land Sachsen, and that the court concluded that 'the public vote for the construction of the bridge has to be implemented'. The report records that the Land Sachsen had requested that the procedure continue in accordance with the public vote and that the City Council had halted the project. The date is when the Centre received the decision; the court's judgment itself was not read and the report gives no ruling date.

   Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre

6. 2007
   31st session (Christchurch): Decision 31 COM 7A.27 keeps the property on the Danger List

   The Committee noted that the City Council had halted the project and a court case between the City and the Land had followed; taking into account that the judicial process had been exhausted, it asked the State Party to 'continue its efforts to find an appropriate solution' and submit alternatives by 1 October 2007, applied the reinforced monitoring mechanism, retained the property on the Danger List, and decided to delete it from the World Heritage List (citing paragraphs 192-198 of the Operational Guidelines) if bridge construction had an irreversible impact on its Outstanding Universal Value.

   Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre

7. August 2007
   Construction of the bridge begins

   UNESCO's 2009 state of conservation page lists August 2007 as the start of construction of the Waldschlösschen Bridge.

   Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre

8. 4-5 February 2008
   Reinforced monitoring mission

   A World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reinforced monitoring mission visited the property while foundation excavation was under way. UNESCO's 2008 report records its conclusion that the chosen Elbe crossing would have a considerable, irreversible negative impact on the property's Outstanding Universal Value, that a tunnel would likely have a much smaller impact, and that a redesigned bridge would likely have a comparable negative impact.

   Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre

9. 2008
   32nd session (Quebec City): Decision 32 COM 7A.26

   The Committee regretted that construction had been allowed to proceed, 'Strongly requests the State Party to immediately halt the current construction works', urged reconsideration of the tunnel option, decided to continue to apply the Reinforced Monitoring mechanism, requested a report by 1 February 2009, and retained the property on the Danger List, with deletion at the 33rd session in 2009 'if the planned works on the bridge continue and the damage already caused is not reversed'. UNESCO's news item of 4 July 2008 says the Committee gave Dresden more time because of legal proceedings in Germany.

   Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre

10. 28 January 2009
    Germany's update report

    UNESCO's 2009 page summarises an update report from the Permanent Delegation of Germany dated 28 January 2009: it states that 'all legal procedures at Courts' concerning halting or changing the project were completed and that 'the bridge is being built as planned'. The Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre assessed that the requests to halt had not been addressed and that the infrastructure works had 'impacted irreversibly on the integrity and outstanding universal value of the property'.

    Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre

11. 25 June 2009
    33rd session (Seville): Decision 33 COM 7A.26 deletes the property; Decision 33 COM 8C.3 removes it from the Danger List

    The Committee decided to delete the Dresden Elbe Valley (Germany) from the World Heritage List. In the same session, Decision 33 COM 8C.3 decided to remove it from the List of World Heritage in Danger. UNESCO's news item of 25 June 2009 describes it as the second property ever removed from the List, after Oman's Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in 2007.

    Sources: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, UNESCO World Heritage Centre

12. 25 June 2009
    German Federal Foreign Office statement

    Minister of State Günter Gloser stated that he regretted the Committee's decision ('Ich bedaure die Entscheidung des Welterbekomitees') and that, despite intensive efforts, no compromise had been reached.

    Sources: Auswärtiges Amt (German Federal Foreign Office)

Connected pages

• Germany — State Party and territory where the property and the bridge are located
• Dresden Elbe Valley — heritage site