By Lloyd Kandasammy
The beauty of Georgetown and its distinctive wooden heritage has been marvelled at by tourists and architects from around the world. For example in 2002 the Urban Wooden Heritage Conference hosted by UNESCO was held in Guyana. The participants upon touring the many sites were duly amazed at the conference. Time after time tourism authorities as well as stakeholders have touted with great fanfare the beauty of the city’s buildings and its benefits for the struggling industry.
The underlying architectural, historical and aesthetic appeal of the Caribbean’s garden city with its wide tree lined avenues, canals and distinctive wooden heritage should easily qualify for inscription to UNESCO’s prestigious world heritage list. This is of course much easier, said than done, as the process to have Georgetown inscribed has been riddled by many problems chief of which is the apparent non commitment of the powers to be.
UNESCO History: The United States was at one time critical in initiating the idea of combining cultural conservation with nature conservation. A White House conference in 1965 called for a World Heritage Trust to preserve “the world’s superb natural and scenic areas and historic sites for the present and the future of the entire world citizenry.”
The International Union for Conservation of Nature developed similar proposals in 1968, and they were presented in 1972 to the United Nations conference on Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden. A single text was ultimately agreed on by all parties involved, and the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 November 1972.
The Criteria: Until the end of 2004, there were six criteria for cultural heritage, Nominated sites must be of “outstanding universal value” and meet at least one of the criteria identified under the terms of the convention. In summary these included:
I. “to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius”
II. “to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design”
III. “to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared”;
IV. “to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history”
V. “to be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change”;
VI. “to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria)”.
Putting Georgetown forward: In December 2000 the permanent delegation of the Netherlands to UNESCO funded two preparatory asssitance missions to assess Guyana’s chances for inscription to this prestigious list. The first of these missions was undertaken 20 February- 13 March 2000 and the second was undertaken 7- 19 October 2000. The results of these two missions clearly indicated that Georgetown had an excellent chance to be inscribed to the list of world heritage list, this information more or less would then form the template for the dossier to be submitted.
This document submitted to the Guyana National Commission for UNESCO used the following description to justify Georgetown’s nomination.
“The aim is to nominate Georgetown on the basis of its unique urban plan, a layout according to 18th century Dutch plantation structures only to be found in the West, in relation to the specific 19th century wooden architecture, which is a blend of British colonial architecture with influences from the West Indies and Creole craftsmanship.
A selection of individual buildings and monuments herein as primary examples is of importance. Georgetown’s specific charatcter results from the combination of its urban pattern, the coherent style and material of the buildings, and the spaciousness and greenness of its appearance.
The architectural heritage is a blend of styles and a true example of mutual heritage. The main style is British Colonial, Victorian that is with important influences from the West Indies in response to the particular climatic conditions of Guyana.
The report further elaborated that “the proposed property consitutes an architectural ensemble and an urban landscape which illustrates the cultivation of this region through large scale plantations utilizing Dutch civil engineering techniques and the conversion of these plantations into residential neighbourhoods for a city below sea level”.
Combined the proposed property represnts an outstanding example of mutual heritage, blending planning and building traditions of the Dutch, British, African and West Indian origins.
Ths historic ambience: the historic neighbourhoods of Kingston, Cummingsburg, Lacytown and Stabroek were laid out in the 18th and the 19th centuries and contain the most significant examples of buildings and spaces, authentic in layout, architecture and function. However, as the report noted, as cultural historic ensembles these areas are too fragmented to justify their nomination to the World Heritage List. In the circumstance Georgetown, unlike neighbouring Paramaribo, Suriname, where the buildings exist within a single block the criteria for inscription, Georgetown’s selection criteria will be classified as that of groups of buildings: “groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value, from the point of view of history, art or science.”
The Monuments to be inscribed: Based on the forgoing criteria an original list of thirteen buildings was identified. Due to the catastrophic loss of the Church of the Sacred Heart, this list of monuments has now shrunk to twelve. These include: The Cheddi Jagan Research Centre: Red House, Austin House, the Official Residence of the Archbishop of the Anglican Church, The Prime Minister’s Residence, State House: the Official Residence of His Excellency the President of Guyana, the Walter Roth Museum of Anthropology, The Promenade Gardens, St. George’s Cathedral, City Hall, St. Andrews Kirk, Stabroek Market, Dargan House: the office of the National Commission for UNESCO and Parliament Buildings.
Existing Legislation & Historic Preservation: In addressing the issue of heritage conservation and the law the report noted that there is a pressing need for the existing laws in Guyana to be updated. Historic preservation falls squarely within the mandate of the National Trust of Guyana which was established by an Act of Parliament in 1972. Prior to this, the preservation of Guyana’s historic sites was the vested task of the National History and Arts Council, which was founded on 1 January 1963, and the Standing Commit-tee for the Preser-vation and Protection of Archaeological, Monuments and Historic Sites, which was established in 1963.
The mandate of the National Trust of Guyana stipulates the need for the preservation of buildings of national or architectural, historic or artistic interest and the augmentation of the amenities and of those buildings and places and their surroundings, the preservation of the furniture and pictures and chattels of any description having national or historic or artistic value, The access to and enjoyment by the public of such buildings, places and chattels and the promotion of the permanent preservation for the benefit of the nation, of property of beauty or historic interest.
The stakeholders: For the administration and management of the historic districts of Georgetown the following agencies will no doubt have important roles to play. These include the Ministry of Culture, Youth & Sport, through the National Trust of Guyana, The Ministry of Housing and Water through the Central Housing & Planning Authority, The mayor and City Council, The Ministry of Tourism & Industry through the Guyana Tourism Authority, the Ministries of Education and Local Government and most importantly the members of the community, without whose co-operation nothing will succeed.
The Problem: Inadequate Legislation: At best the Trust, despite the existing legislative framework, cannot readily enforce or actively realize its mandate because of the antiquated clauses within its legislature. The Trust can legally only offer protection to a monument or site only after it has been gazetted. This process has thus far resulted in the legal inscription of nine national monuments. After this time consuming process has been completed these sites are then vested as the property of the Trust. In the case of a building being demolished the Trust can have an interim preservation notice invoked on the powers of the Minister.
There are many problems within the Trust Act, in particular the paltry fines attached for damages. At a sum of 5 Dollars (US) or less, for damages incurred the guilty party will most likely brush off such a charge with little more than a smile. The urgent need to protect the few remaining chapters of the country’s patrimony, particularly Georgetown has been addressed but never fully implemented. For example some 85 monuments were listed countrywide to have them gazzetted since 2001, to date, reports from the powers in charge state that they are still being examined. In the course of the legal process towards listing, a national monument has been opposed by some parties who object to the clause that the property once gazetted becomes the property of the Trust.
Attempts to have the Trust act enhanced with the withdrawal of this clause were bluntly refused by the powers to be. Additionally, clauses to guide the listing process, through classification and grading of buildings based on architectural, historic merit etc have also been tabled since 2002, six years later, these documents have not yet been addressed, rather they have been pushed aside, gathering dust on a shelf.
To reiterate this point it is necessary to highlight an excerpt from the report submitted:
Updating some parts of the Act is necessary. In particular, the section regarding the fines for damage to and demolition of monuments and monumental building, which is related, to the price level of the 1970s.
Additional assistance in maintaining law and order is also provided with varying degrees of problems through the Municipality Act which governs the Mayor and Town Council and the Central Housing and Planning Authority, through their Greater Georgetown Development Plan 2001- 2010. Of the two the CH&PA has undertaken an active role in stakeholder participation but the loophole comes through the haphazard operations at City Hall which often appears to have no knowledge of which buildings are historic, what is heritage conservation and thus proceeds to approve structures with little or no architectural merit in the historic corridor of Georgetown.
To their credit the GGDP by the CHPA must be regarded as a significant step forward in addressing the current situation in Georgetown. Problems arise however when the proper channels of communication are sidestepped by officials and developers alike. In many cases officials are caught off guard as plans for buildings are approved and construction commences without ever being passed through these agencies.
The aforementioned situation was noted in the preliminary report by the team which visited. Specifically the concerns raised addressed the need to safeguard the historic ambience of the areas within which the sites are situated. Because these are not cluster sites it is imperative that the spaces between these buildings are not spoilt by newly erected structures which do not confirm to the setbacks, boundaries, scale, size, architecture, and materials of construction within this zone. As a direct result of this a draft of Building Guidelines in Historic Districts was prepared through the Trust, but regrettably, five years later this is still being examined.
This document was and is intended to act as a comprehensive guide for developers and stakeholders to identify what is required when rebuilding or building in a historic zone. In summary it called for additions and alterations of existing buildings to confirm with the existing structure thereby retaining some semblance of architectural continuity, colours to be used within the area, materials of construction. For newly constructed buildings the guidelines asked developers to take into consideration aspects such as landscaping, setback and existing boundary lines, styles for fences, illumination, signage and most importantly the incorporation of architectural features within the new designs etc.
The bid to have Guyana inscribed on the prestigious World Heritage List was undertaken with tremendous enthusiasm by Mrs. Carmen Jarvis, then Secretary General of the Guyana National Commission of UNESCO, through a specially established sub committee for Legislation and Conservation. Since her departure this project received minimal attention.
It is envisaged that the newly appointed Secretary General, Ms. Inge Nathoo, will undertake to complete that task started by Mrs Jarvis with similar or greater vigour to ensure that this is achieved. The committee established under Mrs Jarvis had collected data pertinent to the information required for the compilation of the dossier. Similarly photographs of the cultural properties and maps etc had been undertaken.
In all one can say that the dossier can be quickly put together but the absence of effective legislation stands as the largest single obstacle for this dossier to be accepted as effective legislation would entail continuous management of the area and hence its survival for the benefit of the current and future generations. In the circumstance an immediate task must be the implementation of effective legislation as UNESCO has affirmed a position that they would not consider any proposal from Guyana unless proper legislation exists to afford the maintenance and the survival of the site once it has been inscribed.
In August 2008 CARIFESTA, first conceptualized and staged by His Excellency Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham, will bring throngs of visitors to Guyana, many of whom will no doubt marvel at the city’s architectural gems. Similarly in 2009 the International Council for Monuments ICOMOS will be staging a workshop in Georgetown. At this conference to be hosted by the National Trust of Guyana and the University of Guyana, to celebrate wooden architecture, the beauty of Georgetown will again be displayed. In the circumstance maybe, it would be wise for the necessary authorities to move past formalities and conversing of glorious ideas and actually implement and realize their mandate.
lloydkandasammy@yahoo.com
