Parliamentary Assembly
Assembl�e parlementaire

Protection of the cultural heritage in Kosovo

Doc. 10127
5 April 2004

Information report[1]
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
General Rapporteur on the Cultural Heritage: Mr Eddie O’Hara, United Kingdom, Socialist Group

Contents

Memorandum arising from the study-visit in October 2003 by Mr O’Hara

APPENDICES

1. Recommendation 1511 (2001) on the cultural situation in Kosovo

2. Reply by the Committee of Ministers to Recommendation 1511 (Doc. 9321)

3. Programme of the study visit on 9-10 October 2003

4. Subsequent correspondence (MCYS and UNMIK)

BACKGROUND

1.         The visit arose out of representations made by Mr Dacic (Serbia-Montenegro) at a meeting of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education in Budapest on 10 September 2003. Mr Dacic expressed concern at the destruction of cultural and historic Christian Orthodox heritage in the region of Kosovo and Metohija even under the presence of the UN and KFOR. He referred to several artistic treasures dating back to the 14th century, for instance the Church of the Holy Virgin Hodegetria and the Monastery of Holy Trinity (Musutiste), which had been burnt down. He provided a booklet “Crucified Kosovo” (published in 1999) giving much illustrative detail of other damage and destruction and requested that the situation should be investigated on the spot.

2.         The Parliamentary Assembly has investigated this matter in the past. In October 2000 Mrs Poptodorova (Bulgaria) made a study visit resulting in an information report “Cultural situation in Kosovo”, Doc 8930 (20 January 2001). This was followed by a report with the same title presented to the Parliamentary Assembly on 25 April 2001 (Doc 9053). Recommendation 1511 (2001) was adopted on that occasion and received a detailed reply from the Committee of Ministers (Doc 9321, 21 January 2002, see appendices 1 and 2).  There was a current affairs debate on “The current situation in Kosovo” in the Parliamentary Assembly on the morning of Tuesday 30 September 2003. Most of the debate addressed general issues of human rights and the rule of law in Kosovo. Mr Dacic made brief reference to the destruction of over 100 Christian churches, monasteries and historic monuments.

3.         A Unesco mission visited more than 40 selected sites in Kosovo in March 2003. The mission identified three major categories of architectural monuments at risk:

4.         It identified three different factors to account for “the present sad state” of the cultural heritage sites:

5.         At its meeting on 2 October 2003, the Committee on Culture, Science and Education determined that, as there was a meeting of the Cultural Heritage Sub-Committee in Skopje on 8-9 October 2003, the General Rapporteur for the Cultural Heritage should proceed from there to Kosovo to make an up-to-date assessment of the situation there. The itinerary for the visit is appended (appendix 3). Mr Grayson, Head of Secretariat for Culture, Science and Education, accompanied the General Rapporteur.

AGENCIES WORKING IN KOSOVO

6.         In the following description of the visit, mention is made of numerous organisations active in Kosovo:

THE STUDY VISIT

7.         The Council of Europe provided transport from Skopje to Pristina where we arrived in the early evening of 9 October. On route we passed by Kacanik where we saw a camouflaged tank entrenched before an Orthodox church by the roadside. In Pristina we were met by representatives of UNMIK working with MCYS who kindly escorted us throughout our visit (Mr Stefano Sgobba, Minority Integration and Heritage Officer and Ms Carole Lep�tre, Cultural Heritage Programme Advisor).

8.         The delegation proceeded immediately to a meeting with the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR). They advised us that cultural heritage is not in their mandate. However the detailed damage assessment carried out in 2000 is a useful reference point for destruction of cultural property. A CD-ROM of this was provided. A small number of reconstruction projects have been carried out involving cultural property:

9.         EAR is prepared to help fund the refurbishment of a dormitory in the Decani Monastery, but there are problems of finding an agreement between the CCK in Belgrade, UNMIK and MCYS over how to do this. We continued to hear of this specific issue throughout our visit.

10. The day of 10 October was spent mainly in the field. In the countryside it was noticeable that much of the fertile plain was fallow. In areas where it was being worked, the rich, black soil was evident. However more evident than new planting was new house building, apparently random and uncontrolled and lacking road and service infrastructure, except in the areas where whole new communities of houses were being constructed by EAR. Frequently, a new mosque was seen with a dome and minaret, accompanied by a cluster of houses. This is attributed to funding from Saudi Arabia, a claim that has to be verified. The delegation visited:

The Red Mosque (15th Century), in the centre of the town, was being reroofed.

The Bajrakli Mosque (15th century) was restored by the Italian humanitarian organisation INTERSOS in co-operation with the Italian National Institute for Restoration. The Italian mission Arcobaleno financially supported the project. The restoration of the Mosque was part of a wider programme aimed at improving reconciliation between local communities through the awareness and respect of cultural heritage. Alongside the restoration of the Mosque, INTERSOS was also simultaneously dedicated to the urgent restoration of some frescoes in the Patriarchate of Peja.

The medieval bazaar, destroyed in entirety by retreating Serbs, but now also restored.

11.       At Decani Monastery the delegation had extensive discussions with Father Sava who is ITC literate and has been highly proactive in promoting the case for the Serb Orthodox cultural heritage in Kosovo. His views merit substantial presentation as they illustrate many of the difficulties faced by those concerned in principle and in practice with the safeguarding of this heritage.

12.       Father Sava pointed out that, though there had been much damage during the war, the most systematic destruction of Serb property had come in the immediate aftermath of the war itself. This was not vandalism by ordinary people or looting by thieves (though these did occur). Rather it was professional destruction by trained persons who knew exactly where to plant explosives for maximum and permanent effect. No investigation had been completed on any incident. He was disappointed in the level of interest shown by UNMIK, KFOR and European institutions. The Monastery of Decani had survived thanks to the presence of Italian troops who happened to be stationed in the area, acting not on orders but in response to appeals from the monks of Decani. French troops had similarly saved the monastery of Devic.

13.       He had toured Europe with Bishop Artemisje appealing for assistance for the Serb Orthodox heritage in Kosovo. The Albanians tended to dismiss this heritage. They criticised as propaganda the “political churches” built by Milosevic, but these were genuine churches built by communities after the period of communist oppression. Moreover Bishop Artemisje supported the parties in opposition to Milosevic. Indeed the Monastery of Decani had given sanctuary to over 200 Albanian Muslims during the war.

14.       Another line of attack by the Albanian authorities was that the Serbs were political colonisers and not indigenous to Kosovo and even that the Serb Orthodox monasteries were originally Albanian Catholic, despite the Slav inscriptions. He condemned such historical revisionism and destruction of cultural heritage in the name of politics and state building.

15.       When asked whether the destructions had continued after the period of war and reprisals, Father Sava referred to the vandalisation of an iconostasis only a month ago.

16.       This raised the question of protection of ruined property on church land. In Jakuvica the Albanians were asking for the ruins of an Orthodox church to be cleared to make way for a car park. Reconstruction of the church was felt to be provocative but the Italians were (in response to Father Sava’s request) refusing to clear the ruins.  Legislative safeguards were inadequate and left too much to the whim of the military. He could not give many other examples because he was unable to travel freely.

17.       He understood that apart from those buildings destroyed at the outset and documented in his publications, the most important Orthodox buildings were in fair condition and protected (Decani, Gracanica and Prizren). The safe-keeping of the Monastery of Decani was an important symbol that did not fit with the Albanians’ wish for their own state.  

18.       When asked how reconstruction of the heritage might be encouraged, Father Sava called for the Serbian heritage to be brought to the attention of the European institutions and better investigated. Decani should be confirmed by Unesco as a World Heritage Site.

19.       It was put to Father Sava that different levels of protection and preservation should be distinguished:

20.       He agreed that there was a need for classification and protection of monuments, but there was also a need for security. Protection of property should include protection of its setting. There had been threats of inappropriate building on the lands surrounding the monastery. He hoped that the whole area would be protected as an historic park but the local authorities (which were Albanian) were not sympathetic. False papers had been produced in a recent case involving the demolition of two houses belonging to the monastery to enable the construction of a roundabout in Decani village. An appeal had been lodged to a higher authority. He was not optimistic that the local community would change. He referred to the racial insults from adults and children who visited the area.

21.       He said that ad hoc arrangements were not acceptable. The Serb Orthodox monasteries should be granted special status and access allowed for Serb experts. He compared St Catherine’s in Sinai. Ruins should be preserved and undestroyed Serb Orthodox churches in Albanian areas restored and preserved. He had visited Cyprus several times and compared the exemplary treatment of the Islamic heritage in the South. In contrast, the ethnic Albanian authorities seemed committed to destroying the identity of the Serbs in Kosovo. He feared what would happen when UNMIK left.

22.       The continuity of protection of Serb property should continue to be assured by the Serb experts in Belgrade who knew this heritage well. Such experts did not exist in Kosovo. He referred to the argument about the monastery dormitory. EAR were prepared to fund it but were not allowed to pay directly CCK, which had the expertise. Meanwhile the MCYS (effectively staffed by Albanians) wanted to do the work on its own. The monastery could hardly exclude CCK which was already working on a new kitchen block (with a Serb architect and funds).

23.       He presented the delegation with a revised publication of “Crucified Kosovo” and further documentation on Serb heritage in Kosovo. He then led a tour of the monastery buildings and workshops.

24.       On returning to Pristina the delegation had talks with UNMIK in the persons of Mr Gerard Fischer, Deputy to DSRG, and Mr Biyyala V.P. Rao, Principal International Officer UNMIK/MCYS.

25.       Initial reference was made to the talks with Father Sava earlier in the day, with particular reference to disputes over title to land. It was explained that legal status of land is a key issue which remains a reserve power (i.e. not transferred to a PISG). Decani Monastery was involved in the problems of denationalisation (under judicial review) as well as appeals against local authorities (Father Sava had referred to 700 hectares of land confiscated by Tito which the monastery was trying to recover). It was therefore entirely possible for there to be competing sets of legal documents.

26.       Two approaches to the problem were considered:

27.       The classification of the monastery and surroundings as a World Heritage Site would solve the problem of Decani. The application was made before the war by Belgrade and is pending.

28.       Father Sava was praised for his progressive attitude to inter-ethnic dialogue. The idea of opening the monastery to children on European Heritage Days had been discussed but not carried through, possibly because of opposition from others in the Orthodox hierarchy.

29.       It was put to UNMIK that 4 or 5 levels of safeguard for sites could be considered:

30.       It was agreed that protection and maintenance of sites must continue. However KFOR was down-sizing rapidly and no longer sees heritage protection as a priority. Brussels believes that 4 years is enough. The matter is being handed over to the elected and accountable civilian government and police.

31.       It was suggested to UNMIK that mutual respect for each other’s ethnic cultural heritage was so crucial to the normalisation of inter-communal relations that it should be a performance indicator for local authorities and judiciaries whether and how often and how successfully they prosecuted those who violated sites of heritage value.

32.       It was considered that restoration and reconstruction must be linked to returns of Serb population.

33.       The delegation held its final (and late) talks with MCYS in the persons of the Director of the Department of Culture, Mr Hasan Zekaj, and the Head of Cultural Heritage in the Department of Culture, Mrs Gleljane Hoxha.

34.       The structures of the Department of Culture were explained: Mr Zekaj is Director of the Department of Culture which divides into Cultural Heritage (headed by Mrs Hoxha), Cultural Promotion (headed by Mr Bakija) and Performing and Visual Arts (headed by Mr Goranci).

35.       Alongside the ministry are:

36.       In terms of activities, priority is being given to cultural heritage.  A new law is being drafted with the help of Council of Europe experts. There is close inter-ministerial co-operation and the drafting group includes representatives of the Serb and Turkish minorities.

37.       The official position of MCYS is that the same protection should be given to all monuments whether Albanian or Serb. However MCYS has a problem of access to Orthodox heritage which is currently restricted to KFOR and UNMIK. MCYS wants to send its officials and experts to inspect and protect these monuments and sites. These problems made it difficult to compile an inventory.

39.       There is a lack of sufficient funding and expertise. Appeals have been made to Unesco, the Council of Europe and the EU.

40.       There is good co-operation with local authorities (with initial help from the Council of Europe).

41.       It was difficult to get a clear answer as to what counted as heritage and on what criteria the inventory was being compiled. This seemed to be particularly so with reference to religious buildings. A minimum age of 80 years appeared to be given for the classification of a monument as of heritage value.

42.       In response to detailed questioning, it appeared that little could be done to help Orthodox heritage because access was not permitted. The principle was to protect buildings but to clear rubble from ruins. It was suggested that this might be detrimental to any archaeological work on a site, including recovery of items and fragments of value among the rubble.

43.       It was felt that protection of vulnerable sites, other than by KFOR, was difficult in practice. It was suggested that vandalism and unauthorised removal of material should be made an offence at least to enable prosecution of those caught.

44.       As to UNMIK, it was again suggested to MCYS that respect for and protection of each other’s ethnic heritage was so crucial to inter-communal tolerance and reconciliation that it should be encouraged by legal sanction and that this should be a performance indicator for local authorities and judiciaries. In response, reference was made to the religious tolerance that existed before the war, with examples of Albanian protection of Serb churches.

45.       The meeting ended with a reminder of the appeal for the return of cultural property to the Pristina Museum of Kosova. Documentation was circulated. Only one key figurine had been returned as a gesture from Belgrade.

CONCLUSIONS

46.       Any conclusions must take account of the fact that the delegation did not talk to any politicians, local or national. Nor did they talk to any representatives of the ethnic Albanian Kosovans as such.

47.       From the delegation’s admittedly slight and not necessarily representative contact with ethnic Albanians, and from talking to agency workers about them, an impression was gained that they in general have an enlightened approach to Islam. They do not seem to identify with the heritage of the Ottoman past in the same way as the Serbs identify with their Orthodox heritage from medieval times to the present. Indeed to the ethnic Albanians, new and restored houses and factories seem to be of higher importance than mosques, certainly at this time.

48.       This would suggest that, quite apart from the antipathy lingering from the hostilities, the Ethnic Albanians simply do not empathise with the Serbs’ extreme concern about the fate of their Orthodox heritage.

49.       However, as has been emphasised several times in this report, it is crucial for the achievement of inter-communal reconciliation that the two sides should learn to respect each other’s heritage.

50.       The fact that education is apparently segregated on ethnic lines does not augur well for this in the near future.

51.       Against this unpromising background, what ways forward can be found to protect the cultural heritage?

52.       The first task must be to draw up an inventory of sites at risk such as to identify, distinguish and prioritise different categories of monument. However MCYS appear presently to have difficulties in achieving this.

53.       Obviously at the higher end of the scale are monuments of immense heritage value such as the monasteries of Decani, Gracanica and Prizren. At the lower end there is the task of researching the history of local churches to see if it is possible to identify convincing evidence that some were, as the Albanians claim, “colonising” or “political” churches founded by Milosevic and thus of diminished heritage value.

54.       MCYS clearly need all the assistance they can get to compile this inventory. Detailed information and expertise is available from Belgrade, but there are political problems in the way of accessing it. Agencies such as Unesco and the Council of Europe have access to independent expertise. A way needs to found of bringing this expertise together in synergy.

55.       As the inventory is compiled, all sites identified for inclusion must be immediately secured and protected. This task cannot wait upon completion of the inventory.

56.       Physical protection may take many forms. In the case of undamaged buildings, KFOR now often provides armed protection but this will be increasingly difficult to provide. As KFOR is downsized and eventually withdrawn, alternative security must be provided. Responsibility for security will pass to the UNMIK police which has been developing a multi-ethnic Kosovo police force. Other forms of physical protection may include repair and securing of doors, blocking of window openings, repair of fences or walls where they still exist or other means of excluding unauthorised access.

57.       In the case of comprehensively demolished buildings it may be a case of tidying up and maintaining the site and securing it to prevent unauthorised removal of materials from it. It should be remembered that ownership of the sites of destroyed Orthodox buildings remains with the Orthodox Church.

58.       The other form of protection is legal, i.e. making it an offence to interfere with sites on the inventory. It is understood that the law on cultural heritage currently being drafted with assistance from the Council of Europe will include provisions specifically addressing the issue of vandalism and intentional destruction and establishing a legal mechanism setting out the responsibilities of municipal authorities in dealing with cultural heritage. Success in enforcement of such legislation should be monitored.

59.       These measures would serve to protect and preserve the sites pending the appropriate time for further work (e.g. priority order or availability of funds).

60.       Building work may take the form of restoration of sites which are of historic value but no longer used, or reconstruction, for example of the local church of a long standing community resettling in its ancestral village. 

61.       Monuments at the top of the list, such as Decani, Gracanica and Prizren must of course have first call on available funds. The Unesco mission has done an important job in prioritising and costing some 40 important sites of all types (religious and secular) and ethnic groups.

62.       Full support should be given to the application for Decani Monastery and environs to be designated a Unesco World Heritage Site.

63.       Clearly MCYS does not have the resources, financial or technical, to carry out and complete this enormous task. It cannot be done without donations and sponsorships from other countries and from the private sector. MCYS itself needs further assistance in the provision of expertise and funding to develop its own administrative and technical capacity to carry out its work.

64.       The programme of measures described above would at least however hold the situation as it is. One major step forward would be for access to historic sites to be opened to recognised conservation experts irrespective of their ethnic or national origin. Another will be the day when all Kosovans are ready to accept as their own the whole rich ethnic diversity of their common Kosovan religious and secular heritage.

POSTSCRIPT

65.       Further contacts with those encountered in October have largely confirmed the above report. Only minor corrections have therefore been made to what was presented to the committee in December 2003.

66.       Two observations should be added now (March 2004). First it is regrettable that there is still little progress in either the drafting of heritage legislation or in preparation of the inventory. Both are priority areas for the MCYS if it is to gain credibility and build confidence. The Council of Europe’s expertise in this area can be welcomed but the responsibility lies with MCYS.

67.       Secondly, it is also regrettable that the Serb Orthodox authorities are maintaining their opposition against intervention in religious properties by other than Serb bodies. This involves a refusal to recognise the authority of the PISG and MCYS and places additional pressure on UNMIK. It might be hoped that a way can be found to break through this deadlock.

68.       Following release of the present interim report, further contacts will be established with the various actors involved with a view to preparing a more substantial report for the summer. This is intended as a contribution from the Assembly’s cultural committee to a joint debate on Kosovo together with the legal and political committees.

Appendix 1: Recommendation 1511 (2001) on the cultural situation in Kosovo

Link to the Adopted text

Appendix 2:   Reply by the Committee of Ministers to Recommendation 1511 (2001) adopted at the 780th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (16 January 2002)

The Committee of Ministers has studied with interest and attention Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1511 (2001) on the cultural situation in Kosovo.

The Committee of Ministers is convinced, like the Parliamentary Assembly, that culture and education are amongst the first victims of any conflict, being at the same time very efficient long-term means for the prevention of conflicts as they help to eradicate the stereotypes, prejudices and intolerance which lead to them. This is true when culture and education are used for their true purposes. Misused, they contribute to causing conflicts. This is why human rights, humanistic values and a sense of shared citizenship need to underpin future education provision in Kosovo.

As regards paragraph 11 of the Recommendation, the Council of Europe will continue to give its support to the assistance programmes in Kosovo in the field of education, at primary but also secondary and university levels, drawing on its experience in educational policy development, which would take into account the need for enhancing employment possibilities with a view to boosting economic recovery, history teaching, language-related programmes and education for democratic citizenship. In the cultural field, particularly heritage (notably, restoration of archaeological sites), the Council of Europe’s prime responsibility is to insist on the application of its own standard-setting instruments and on the ethical values of cultural heritage conservation. The work on the principle of recognising the universal value and guaranteeing equal treatment of the heritage of the various communities co-existing within a territory, or having left their mark on it, have considerably advanced. The results of this work may be put to practical use in Kosovo.

In this latter context, particular attention should be drawn to a Declaration on the protection and rebuilding of places of worship in Kosovo and the wider Balkans, adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 July 2001, in which “the Committee of Ministers expresses heartfelt indignation about the acts of destruction and violence perpetrated against places of worship, most recently in Kosovo, which are central to Europe’s historical and cultural heritage. The Committee of Ministers urges those responsible to ensure the protection of the places of worship and to help in their reconstruction, as symbols of a possible return of mutual confidence and of harmonious coexistence between peoples, nationalities, ethnic groups and religions. It underlines the importance of restoring the original character and architectural style of places of worship which have been destroyed or abandoned.”

The text continues: “The Committee of Ministers points to the Council of Europe’s action to safeguard and rehabilitate the cultural heritage of south-eastern Europe, inter alia through a comprehensive action plan which began to be put into practice in 2000. It appeals to the international community to mobilise so that concerted action is taken to protect and rebuild places of worship in Kosovo and the wider Balkans: UNESCO’s plan for a programme of restoration of Kosovo’s religious monuments is a first encouraging step towards this objective.”

In this respect, the Committee of Ministers wishes to inform the Parliamentary Assembly that, through its GR-C, it has initiated a comprehensive examination of the question of cultural heritage, diversity, identity and cultural rights as a follow-up to the Conferences of Helsinki and Portorož of the Ministers responsible for cultural heritage.

As regards paragraph 12.i, it should be noted that drafting a legal framework for provisional self-government for Kosovo is not the Council of Europe’s mandate.

As regards paragraphs 12 (ii)-12 (viii), the Council of Europe has been working continuously on the questions raised in them. Specifically, one should mention that the Council of Europe has developed a draft legislation for higher and general education within the context of a World Bank-sponsored project. The Council of Europe is also closely co-operating on this subject with the UNMIK. For both organisations, education legislation is a priority, especially following the Kosovo-wide elections for provisional self-government in November 2001. The new constitutional framework provides opportunities for a democratic education system to develop. Several encouraging developments have taken place, such as the unification of the University of Pristina through the abolition of faculty autonomy, the introduction of a progressive university statute, rigorous insistence upon administrative and academic competence, and the start of a process of structural reform on the basis of the principles of the Bologna Declaration and best European practice.  The creation of a network of schools of Political Studies is planned for South East Europe and would include Kosovo.

In 2000, in the framework of the MOSAIC project (“Managing and Open Strategic Approach in Culture” – a project which aims at assisting authorities of South Eastern Europe in ensuring the development of their cultural policies) four experts missions were organised in order to make a precise evaluation of the situation of the cultural sector in Kosovo.

As a result, the first concrete assistance activities were implemented in 2001 in close co-operation with the Department of Culture of the UNMIK, and with the support of other international organisations such as the UNESCO or the Open Society Institute.

In 2001 in the framework of the MOSAIC project:

Following the fruitful co-operation in 2001, the Department of Culture of the UNMIK has expressed the wish to intensify Kosovo's participation in the MOSAIC project. Two request for assistance in 2002 have already been made:

Paragraph 6 of the Recommendation touches on the fields of media, youth and sport programmes. It should be mentioned that all questions concerning media are directly handled in Pristina by the Media Affairs department of the OSCE Mission in Kosovo. The Council of Europe, though, had sponsored a training programme for journalists and other staff members of Radio-Television-Kosovo, a relatively new public broadcaster established in Kosovo with the assistance of the international community, organised by the European Broadcasting Union in Pristina from 10 January to 5 February 2000.

As for youth programmes, a long-term project (October 2001-Spring 2002) is carried out for the Kosovar Albanian youth leaders and the Kosovar Serbian youth leaders with the aim of helping young people in Kosovo to participate in the building of peaceful democratic society. The Council of Europe Youth and Sport Directorate maintains a close co-operation with the UNMIK youth department in terms of exchange of information and ideas on the implementation of youth policy in Kosovo.

As regards the sports activities, the Council of Europe Sport Department has contributed to a number of national initiatives in Kosovo, for example “FunFootballSchools” or a programme of street sport which provided recreation for children.

Appendix

Opinion by the CDCC on Parliamentary Recommendation 1511 (2001) on the cultural situation in Kosovo

The Council for Cultural Co-operation (CDCC) is convinced that culture and education are a most efficient long-term means for the prevention of all conflicts as they help to eradicate the stereotypes, prejudices and intolerance which lead to them. This is true of the best forms of culture and education, while the worst forms play an important role in causing conflicts. This is why human rights, humanistic values and a sense of shared citizenship need to underpin future education provision in Kosovo, and why the work of the Council of Europe in this field should be strengthened.

Bringing culture back to life and re-establishing an educational system will need urgent support. Promoting a policy of equity in the schooling of all Kosovo children, raising awareness of cultural diversity as a richness, must be considered as priority.

The Parliamentary Assembly’s recommendation draws attention to the replacement of old buildings - in particular religious ones - with new constructions funded by third countries, which differ completely from the local traditional style of architecture.

The local cultural heritage is inadequately taken into account in political stabilisation and economic development strategies (reconstruction, return of refugees and displaced persons, rehabilitation of housing, employment, etc.).

However, in spite of years of neglect, the recent war, the damage inflicted, and possibly misguided choices in the reconstruction process now under way, Kosovo still has a rich built heritage, of importance to the development of this part of Europe.  The country's historical monuments are clearly of a high quality, but Kosovo's "ordinary" urban and rural heritage is ill-known and ill-appreciated.

Although some of the heritage has been recognised as part and parcel of the European heritage this does not yet seem to apply to those elements which are perceived locally as being of a different nature or origin to the well-known heritage. The former has been studied and inventoried, but is in need of military protection in view of the current political situation. The latter are largely underrated despite their development potential.

Improved management of the reconstruction process is essential to help local authorities and the province's institutions identify development solutions respectful of Kosovo's built heritage.  Generally speaking, the situation is difficult at present because of administrative, logistical and financial problems and illegal activities.

In the field of Education, the Council of Europe will continue to give its full support to the assistance programmes which the Council of Europe is operating in Kosovo. The Parliamentary Assembly’s recommendation rightly points out that the Council of Europe is in a very strong position to make a substantial contribution to the process of education reform, and the full range of work – particularly in policy development, history teaching, language and education for democratic citizenship - will be needed for years to come. Such long-term support will be essential to accompany the Kosovo in a complex process of transition.

The recommendation highlights the major problems and challenges which are being faced in the education field, and the difficulties in financial, administrative and logistical organisation. The CDCC would also like to emphasize the excellent work which has been accomplished under the leadership of Professor Michael Daxner, International Administrator of the University of Pristina and Co-Head of the Department of Education and Science, to ensure that the higher education system is now fully set on a path of major reform in extremely difficult circumstances. The unification of the University of Pristina through the abolition of faculty autonomy, the introduction of a progressive university statute, rigorous insistence upon administrative and academic competence, and the start of a process of structural reform on the basis of the principles of the Bologna Declaration and best European practice constitute some success of this work. They are remarkable in such a hostile environment, and have been accomplished with inadequate human and financial resources.

Paragraph 12 of Recommendation 1511 (2001) mentions a number of future action areas.

The medium-term solution lies in the reform of heritage, spatial development and town planning legislation.  Such reforms must take into account the European and international reference texts and bring about an institutional and operational reorganisation with a view to improved heritage management.

Experience has shown that establishing a favourable political context is a prerequisite for this type of action. Through the channels open to them and with the assistance of their fellow parliamentarians in Kosovo, the members of the Parliamentary Assembly are best-placed to make central and local government authorities in Kosovo aware of the benefits of protection and enhancement of all kinds of heritage.  By citing examples, they could show its cultural, social and political advantages, along with its economic interest and potential as a development asset.

In the cultural heritage field, the Council of Europe's prime responsibility is to insist on the application of its own standard-setting instruments and on the ethical values of cultural heritage conservation. The work on the principle of recognising the universal value and guaranteeing equal treatment of the heritage of the various communities co-existing within a territory or having left their mark on it have advanced. The results of this work may be put to practical use in Kosovo.

The CDCC can but endorse the action proposed by the Assembly in the outline of the "Declaration on the role of voluntary organisations in the field of cultural heritage" adopted at the European Conference of Ministers responsible for the cultural heritage of Portorož in April 2001.  In this field, the possibilities for co-operation or twinning arrangements between associations, involving in particular those of the new member states are already taken into account. The extension of other heritage education activities to Kosovo, notably the pilot project "Europe: from one street to another" will also be taken into consideration.

The Council of Europe is one of the “lead” agencies in the education field, and is currently developing legislation for both higher and general education within the context of a World Bank-sponsored project. Education legislation is now regarded as a priority for UNMIK, in particular after the Kosovo-wide elections for provisional self-government in November 2001. The process of harmonisation is moving ahead quickly, and the new constitutional framework provides opportunities for a democratic education system to develop. The Committee strongly agrees that long-term support will be required if this hope of democratic development is to become a reality. In this sense, it is regrettable that the Council of Europe is only able to undertake such priority work thanks to funding from external agencies.

The CDCC fully supports the Parliamentary Assembly’s recommendations for action in the education field.  In the framework of its competences and acquired experience, the Council of Europe is ready to provide assistance to teacher training projects currently being implemented in Kosovo. 

Work in the subjects of history and modern languages could also be undertaken to provide assistance to overall curriculum reform, while the Committee’s academic exchange programmes have been fully opened to Kosovo participants, and should help the process of normalisation. A development of comprehensive equal opportunities policies in the education sector is taken into account in the development of the general education law too.

Appendix 3:     Programme of the study visit on 9-10 October 2003

Thursday 9 October

16.00                Drive from Skopje, Great Western Hotel

17.30                Arrival in Pristina, Grand Hotel

17.45                Meeting with representatives of MCYS

18.00                Meeting with EAR, EU Building, with Mr Odran Hayes and

Mr Thierry Bernard-Gueul

Friday 10 October

08.30                Departure from Pristina

                        Drive through Pec to Decani

10.30                Visit of the Decani Monastery in Decani

                       Meeting with Father Sava

16.00                Meeting with Mr Gerard Fischer, Deputy DSRSG / Civil Administration UNMIK

                       Meeting with Mr Biyyala V.P. Rao, Principal international Officer UNMIK / MCYS

                        Meeting with MCYS

Mr Hasan Zekaj, Director of the Department of Culture, MCYS.

Mrs Gjeljane Hoxha, Head of Cultural Heritage, Department of Culture, MCYS.

Saturday 11 October

10.00                Drive to Skopje airport

Appendix 4:     Subsequent correspondence with Mr O’Hara, General Rapporteur on the Cultural Heritage

(a) Letter from Mr Behxet Brajshori, Minister, Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports, Provisional Institutions of Self Government, UNMIK – 28 January 2004

Thank you very much for your study visit to Kosovo in October 2003. Unfortunately I could not meet you as I was out of Kosovo during the days you were visiting Kosovo.          

I would like to reiterate my appreciation for the commitment that the Council of Europe has shown towards reaching a deep understanding of the importance of cultural heritage in Kosovo, and providing useful suggestions as to how to manage and protect this heritage in an effective and fair way. In particular, the Ministry welcomes the recommendation that further resources should be provided to train experts and build capacity in this area, as this would greatly assist in the process of preparing an inventory of cultural heritage and prioritising action.  

Nonetheless, I believe that it would be useful to clarify the following points in relation to the distribution of authority in Kosovo, and how this impacts on the protection of cultural heritage. Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1244 and the consequent adoption of a constitutional framework approved by the Security Council, UNMIK established the Kosovo Provisional Institutions of Self Government (PISGs) and it has gradually transferred to them competence for various government functions. Competence in the field of culture, including the preservation of built cultural heritage in Kosovo, has been transferred to an established PISG: the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports. Accordingly, this Ministry is ultimately responsible for the adoption and implementation of a policy on the preservation of built cultural heritage in Kosovo although UNMIK remains responsible for ensuring adequate protection of minority rights in such a policy. UNMIK also works closely with all Kosovan cultural institutions to monitor the respect of minority rights and to assist in the correction of problems that may arise.

Moreover, whilst the report notes that it is difficult to achieve ethnic balance in the PISGs because Serbs are inhibited from living in Pristina, we are doing our best to recuit employees from all minorities of Kosovo. It should be noted that the Ministry has included representatives of the Serb community in Kosovo in the working group on the drafting of law on the cultural heritage.      

Regrettably, cultural heritage can often be exploited to achieve political purposes, which defeats the concept of universal ownership of heritage.  I therefore feel that any report issued by the Council of Europe should avoid citing hearsay or other non-verifiable facts. 

Finally, I am confident that the Ministry and the Council of Europe can share an open and constructive rapport on cultural issues, and I look forward to your continued co-operation and assistance.

(signed: Behxet Brajshori)

(b) Letter from Mr Biyyala V. P. Rao, Principal International Officer, Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports, Provisional Institutions of Self Government, UNMIK – 6 February 2004

Please find enclosed the response of the Minister of Culture, Youth and Sports to the report “Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Kosovo”, which was prepared on the basis of your visit to Kosovo in October 2003.

As noted in the Minister’s letter, competence for the area of cultural heritage has been handed over to the relevant Provisional Institute of Self Government, being the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports. UNMIK retains an advisory and oversight role, and is actively involved in the protection of minority rights.

In addition it should be noted that security in Kosovo, including the implementation of adequate protection for cultural heritage, falls within the reserved competencies of UNMIK. Regarding the possibility of KFOR downsizing its presence in Kosovo and the need to arrange for alternative security, it is pointed out that KFOR has been handing over its responsibilities to UNMIK police, which has been developing a multi-ethnic Kosovo police force. The downsizing and withdrawal of KFOR would be a reflection of gradual restoration of normalcy in Kosovo. As such, it has been a foreseeable and planned component of the transition process that the civilian police assumes the former responsibilities of KFOR, including the protection of cultural heritage sites.

Your recommendations refer to the need to implement adequate legislation to protect cultural property and sited from vandalism or interference. I fully agree with this conclusion, and would like to point out that the Ministry has obtained significant assistance from the Council of Europe for the purpose of drafting legislation on cultural heritage. The draft legislation is at an advanced stage and it is my understanding that it will include provisions specifically addressing the issue of vandalism/intentional destruction. This law will also establish a legal mechanism setting out the responsibilities of municipal authorities in dealing with cultural heritage sites.

Finally, I would like to reiterate the Minister’s support for the recommendation relating to capacity building and training experts. The continued assistance of the Council of Europe in this area will help Kosovo lay the foundations for an effective and fair r�gime for the protection of cultural heritage

Thank your for visiting Kosovo and I am hope that your report will contribute to the efforts to protect cultural heritage in Kosovo.

(signed: Biyyala V.P. Rao)

[1] Approved by the Committee on 18 March 2004.