Oświęcim ring road development as UNESCO world cultural heritage site buffer zone protection case study

Dominika Kinga Długosz

doi:10.37190/arc230307

Abstract

Studying the case of the construction of the ring road of Oświęcim in the vicinity of the former German Nazi concentration and extermination camp Auschwitz-Birkenau (1940–1945), being a UNESCO World Heritage site, the article indicates the need for effective legal protection of an area known as its buffer zone. As current Polish regulations do not provide for such legal protection beyond ad hoc solutions (e.g., provisions included in local zoning plans), the article discusses legal solutions existing in Polish legislation and recommends new ones that can be helpful in ensuring effective protection of designated buffer zones. Listing a site as World Heritage sparks recognition yet entails numerous responsibilities. Since the list includes cultural and natural heritage sites of “outstanding value” to humanity, the prerequisite to preserve their authenticity and integrity is of utmost importance. This also applies to their surroundings. In many cases, the intrusion of such major engineering structures as bridges and highways constructed in the vicinity of a World Heritage site ruins the view and has a negative impact on the cultural landscape developed throughout history. To avoid such cases, in recent years, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee has taken action to promote the mandatory designation of an additional protective, or buffer, zone around the sites to be listed. At the same time, establishing legal protection of such zones in Polish law would make it possible to supervise and control investment activities in such zones

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

2023

3(75)

Dominika Kinga Długosz*

Oświęcim ring road development as UNESCO world cultural

heritage site buffer zone protection case study

Introduction

The Convention concerning the Protection of the World

Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted in Paris on 16 No-

vember 1972 by the General Conference of the United

Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organisation

(UNESCO), and ratied by Poland on 6 May 1976 [1],

and the operational guidelines for its implementation [2]

still remain the primary documents dening the princi-

ples of protecting world heritage sites. Both documents

place a particular emphasis on the proper delineation of

boundaries of areas entered in the World Heritage List [3,

p. 128] and their buer zones. Throughout the implemen-

tation of the Convention, the protection of the “environs”

or “surroundings” was considered a signicant component

of conservation strategies for both cultural and natural her-

itage sites [4, p. 9], and taken account of as an important

element of the recommendation made.

There is no obligation to draw a buer zone at the nom-

ination stage, nevertheless it is recommended by the World

Heritage Committee. The principles for delineating and

designating such a zone are precisely described in the oper-

ational guidelines

. The document species that the buer

zone should encompass the immediate surroundings of the

nominated site, serve as its additional protective layer, pre-

serve important panoramas and/or attributes of functional

signicance for its protection [2, Chapter II.F, Par. 103–107].

However, a serious problem arises in Poland, where

the establishment of a buer zone does not guarantee its

* ORCID: 0000-0001-5785-366X. Faculty of Architecture, Cracow

University of Technology, Poland, e-mail: dominika.dlugosz@pk.edu.pl

The document contains by-laws for the Convention that specify

the principles, criteria, and procedures for entering sites on the World

Heritage List, as well as the principles for monitoring, accompanied by

site submission form templates.

eective protection under Polish law. The protection of

buer zones has not been incorporated into the provisions

of the Act on heritage protection

[5], the Act on spatial

planning and management [6], and the Construction Law

[7]. Meanwhile, any activities with a potential signicant

impact on the appearance and panorama of a World Heri-

tage site, and thereby contributing to the loss of its value,

undertaken in such an area are subject to the special su-

pervision of UNESCO experts. Therefore, this article at-

tempts to answer the question whether there are systemic

solutions in the Polish legal system that allow for the con-

trol of activities in the UNESCO buer zones and, con-

sequently, their eective protection. The subject has not

yet been comprehensively researched, even if the question

of the need to create buer zones for world heritage sites

and the lack of legal grounds for their establishment was

addressed in publications of Bogusław Szmygin [8] and

Katarzyna Zalasińska [3].

This article intends to address the issue of the identied

gaps in this area by analysing a linear investment project

under the name of Oświęcim Ring Road: Option E. Its

construction started late in October 2022, and its corri-

dor runs through the designated UNESCO buer zone

surrounding the former German Nazi Concentration and

Extermination Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau, being a world

In Article 7, the Act on heritage protection species the following

forms and methods of heritage protection: entry into the register of heri-

tage, entry on the List of Heritage Treasures, recognition [of a site or ob-

ject] as historical heritage, establishment of a cultural park and entering

its protection into the local zoning plan, into a decision on the location

of a public investment, into a decision on conditions for development,

into a decision permitting a road investment, into a decision determining

the location of a railway line, or into a decision on the development of

a public airport. The provisions of the act do not specify the method of

protecting buer zones of UNESCO World Heritage sites. Therefore, the

term “buer zone” lacks a legal denition in the Polish system.

DOI: 10.37190/arc230307

Published in open access. CC BY NC ND license

74 Dominika Kinga Długosz

heritage site. The materials gathered, including the docu-

ments serving as guidelines for drafting the construction

design required for carrying out the road development, are

presented in the light of the author’s personal experienc-

es related to her professional work in the eld of cultural

heritage protection.

Protective zones of

the Memorial and Museum

Auschwitz-Birkenau

The Memorial and Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau

Oświęcim (hereinafter referred to as the Museum) was es-

tablished through the eorts of former prisoners, which

were validated by the Act on commemorating the martyr-

dom of the Polish Nation and other Nations in Auschwitz

of 2 July 1947 [9]. The grounds of the Museum, which

enjoys the legal status of a cultural institution, encompass

within its boundaries the buildings and remnants of the

former KL Auschwitz-Birkenau. These include the ruins

of gas chambers and crematoria (Fig. 1), several kilome-

tres of the camp’s barbed-wire fencing, internal roads, and

a railway ramp (in Birkenau) [10]. In this case, protection

extends over a unique area as all these elements are mate-

rial evidence of crime [11, p. 40]. Thus, protection extends

not only to its material and architectural elements (blocks,

wooden barracks, fences), railway sidings, ramps, roads,

technical infrastructure installations, and drainage ditches

but also to the areas surrounding the Memorial as they are

Listed as Auschwitz-Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and

Extermination Camp (1940–1945) by UNESCO, in its history the camp

has also been known as Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial of Extermina-

tion, State Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau, and now uses the name Me-

morial and Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau. All the names, though used in

dierent contexts and in dierent times, denote the same entity, which

is often called “the Museum” throughout the text for the sake of brevity.

a particular proof of the scale of genocide, as, according to

eyewitness accounts, this is where human ashes were scat-

tered. In such circumstances, the establishment of addi-

tional protective zones around the Memorial seemed nec-

essary to ensure long-term preservation also to this part

of heritage of utmost importance. Unfortunately, from

the start, attempts to delineate these zones sparked major

controversy within the local community. The residents of

Oświęcim, Brzezinka, and Pławy began exerting pressure

on local authorities already shortly after the liberation of

the camp, as they demanded the possibility of building

homes and running farm activity on the areas directly ad-

jacent to the Museum [12, p. 17]. The eects of that pres-

sure can still be seen particularly well on the western side

of the Museum’s perimeter, where the sprawling develop-

ments have almost reached its fence (Fig. 2).

The original boundaries of the “Memorial to Martyr-

dom” were established by a regulation of the Minister of

Culture and Art in December 1957

[13]. That, however,

did not solve the problem of uncontrolled development

in the vicinity of the Museum. To prevent such develop-

ments, in 1961, the management of the Museum appealed

to the Board of Museums and Heritage Protection in War-

saw to establish additional protective areas for KL Ausch -

witz-Birkenau. These eorts resulted in a decision on the

detailed location of a protective zone in Brzezinka issued

by the Department of Construction, Urban Planning, and

Architecture of the Regional National Council in Kraków

on 19 April 1962 [14, p. 30]. Its boundaries were dened

precisely in the graphic attachment (Fig. 3). It was only in

The Regulation [13] sets the area of the Memorial of Extermina-

tion at 191.9724 ha, of which KL Auschwitz I covers 20,3578 ha (in the

cadastres of Oświęcim and Brzezinka municipalities), while KL Ausch-

witz II (Brzezinka) covers 171.6146 ha (in the cadastres of Brzezinka

and Pławy municipalities) of the former Oświęcimski County in the

Kraków Voivodeship (Region).

Fig. 1. Ruins of the crematorium,

Auschwitz II-Birkenau Museum

(photo by D. Długosz)

Il. 1. Ruiny krematorium,

Muzeum Auschwitz II-Birkenau

(fot. D. Długosz)

Fig. 2. Pławy. Residential buildings located directly at the western

boundary and fence of Auschwitz II-Birkenau Museum

(photo by D. Długosz)

Il. 2. Pławy. Zabudowa mieszkalna zlokalizowana bezpośrednio

przy zachodniej granicy ogrodzenia Muzeum Auschwitz II-Birkenau

(fot. D. Długosz)

 OświęcimringroaddevelopmentasUNESCOworldculturalheritagesitebuerzoneprotectioncasestudy 75

1972 that such an area was delineated around the Museum

in the former KL Auschwitz.

Sixteen years after the establishment of the original

protective zones, the extent of the investment pressure

and sprawling development in the area were grave enough

for Poland to request the inclusion of the Museum’s

grounds on the UNESCO World Heritage List from the

World Heritage Committee. The documents delivered to

the Committee dened the boundaries of the Museum and

its protective zones, including the previously advocated

“quiet zone” [14, p. 32]. The zones were included in the

contemporary planning guidelines, yet were not echoed in

later legal acts.

In 1979, “Auschwitz-Birkenau. German Nazi Concen-

tration and Extermination Camp (1940–1945)”

was entered

on the World Heritage List. The justication for the inclu-

sion also pointed to the surrounding protective zones that,

already at the time, were intended to function as buer

zones [15]. The World Heritage Committee understands to

this day that they exist formally as they had been submit-

ted by the State (which is a party to the Convention) and

as areas of observation and interest of bodies of interna-

tional experts associated with the World Heritage Centre.

Nevertheless, they have no legal grounds in Polish law.

Both the Act on the protection of the former Nazi exter-

mination camp sites from 1999 [16], whose Article 3 esta-

blishes a protective zone around “Memorials of Extermi-

nation”, which is “a strip of land no wider than 100 m

from the boundaries of the Memorial of Extermination”,

and the decision to register the former concentration camp

site as a monument/a heritage site

only mention the pro-

tection of the narrowed down boundaries of the Memorial

and Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau and do not encompass

the buer zones indicated in the application for entry. The

term “buer zone of a UNESCO World Heritage Site”

is also missing from the provisions of the local zoning

(spatial development) plan for Oświęcim. As much the

surroundings of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial of Ex-

termination are protected through the regulations of the

local zoning plan adopted by the Oświęcim City Council

in 2011 [17], this applies exclusively to the boundaries of

the protective zone around the Memorial of Extermina-

tion set in the Regulation of 27 May 1999 [18]

. The lack

of legal protection for buer zones results in exempting

developers operating in these areas from the obligation

to obtain administrative decisions permitting construc-

Originally registered as “Auschwitz Concentration Camp”. UNESCO

World Heritage Committee arrived at the decision to change the name to

the current one in 2007.

The area of the former concentration and extermination camp,

along with historical fences, all buildings, and facilities related to the op-

eration of the camp, were entered into the register of heritage the Biel sko-

Biała Voivodeship under No. A-714/95 by the decision of the voivodeship

heritage preservation ocer on 2 August 1995, and is currently listed at

A-959/M in the register of the Małopolska Region.

The provisions of the Act on the protection of the former Nazi

extermination camp areas [16] indicate both the municipality’s duty to

draft a local zoning plan for the area of the Memorial of Extermination

and its buer zone (Art. 5) and the principles of conducting economic

activities and construction works in the area (Art. 8 and Art. 10).

tion work and/or other activities near the heritage site that

are issued by the relevant conservation authorities. At the

same time, all construction projects intended in this area

generate signicant interest among expert groups dealing

with the cultural heritage protected by the Museum. Taken

together, all these lead to signicant tensions among local

communities and municipal authorities who plan strategic

investments within the buer zone.

The S1 express-way from

the Kosztowy II interchange in Mysłowice

to the Suchy Potok interchange in Bielsko-Biała

and its impact on buffer zones

The continuous development of the city of Oświęcim,

driven by the increasing number of visitors to the Me-

morial and Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau, and the trac

studies conducted have demonstrated that establishment

of connections convenient for visitors and taking over

trac burden from the DK44 national road has become

a key task for the proper functioning of both the Museum

and the local community. Considered a priority for these

reasons

, the actual construction of the S1 express-way

from the Kosztowy II interchange in Mysłowice to the

Suchy Potok interchange in Bielsko-Biała, including the

construction of two bridges over the Vistula and Soła riv-

ers and engineering infrastructure, has been strategically

The planned section of the S1 Road complements European Cor-

ridor No. VI of the TEN-T network running from Gdańsk in the north

to Podwarpie in the south along the A1 Motorway, then the S1 Express

Road from Podwarpie to the Kosztowy II interchange in Mysłowice, and

further, along a newly designed section of the S1 Express Road from the

Kosztowy II interchange to the Suchy Potok interchange in Bielsko-Bia-

ła, and along the S69 Route to Zwardoń.

Fig. 3. Graphic attachment to the decision of 19 April 1962

concerning the establishment of a protective zone for

the Brzezinka Museum (reproduction).

The border of the zone is marked in red (source: [14, p. 30])

Il. 3. Załącznik graficzny do decyzji z 19.04.1962 r.,

dotyczącej ustanowienia strefy ochronnej

dla Muzeum w Brzezince (reprodukcja).

Granicę strefy oznaczono kolorem czerwonym (źródło: [14, s. 30])

76 Dominika Kinga Długosz

planned and ensconced in strategic documents and through

local acts ahead of the intended construction

The need for this road investment, strategic for the city

of Oświęcim, was strongly promoted by local authorities

and has attracted the interest of World Heritage Committee

experts as its route intersects what is known as the buer

zone (Fig. 4) declared in the documentation submitted for

inclusion on the World Heritage List. Since 2008, when

project drafts were presented, the experts have indicated

its potentially negative impact on both the Museum and

the declared protective zones, including the “quiet zone”

The reason behind their concern are remnants of the former

camp in Harmęże, sub-camp – farm in Pławy, and numer-

ous historical objects

, all of which dene the identity of

the area, dene its geniusloci, and lie within the corridor

designated for the road. The unique nature of the site made

experts emphasise the need for additional detailed studies

to determine the potential impact of the investment on the

surroundings of the world heritage site from the very start

The key documents include SpatialdevelopmentconceptforPo-

land2030, Countrydevelopmentstrategy2020, Nationalroadconstruc-

tionprogrammefor2014–23, Strategyforthedevelopmentofsouthern

Poland in the Małopolskie and Śląskie regions until 2020, Oświęcim

strategicgovernmentalprogramme–stageV2016–20, and the Spatial

DevelopmentPlanfortheMałopolskieRegion.

The designed road corridor runs less than 800 m from its boundary.

The main spatial elements of landscape are not only construc-

tions but also the graves of victims, identied dumps of remains and ash-

es from the crematorium, historical roads and paths, most characteristic

elements of landscape, and historical vegetation.

The rst reports and draft designs were consulted with interna-

tional experts as early as in 2008. Subsequent ones were presented to

them in 2013 and 2021.

To accom

modate these concerns, the Polish side prepared

a document that complements the multi-year and multi-

stage process of developing the linear investment: Report

ontheImpactAssessmentontheWorldHeritageProper-

ty–Auschwitz-BirkenauGermanNaziConcentrationand

ExterminationCamp(1940–1945)forthe project:Con-

structionoftheS1express-wayfromtheKosztowyIIin-

terchangeinMysłowicetotheSuchyPotokinterchangein

Bielsko-Biała [19], which largely concerns the part of the

area surrounding the former German Nazi Concentration

Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau that is protected by the Muse-

um. Its preparation followed numerous expert consulta-

tions with the Secretary-General of UNESCO in Poland,

a team of experts from the National Heritage Institute, the

Małopolska Regional Ocer for Heritage Preservation in

Kraków, the management and experts from the Memorial

and Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau, and representatives of

the local communities: the starost of Oświęcimski County,

the mayor of Oświęcim, and the headman of the Oświęcim

commune [19, p. 42]. The document was developed by

an expert team under the aegis of Multiconsult Polska

sp. z o.o., commissioned by the Katowice branch of the

General Directorate for National Roads and Motorways

in accordance with the guidelines of the Polish National

Committee of the International Council on Monuments

and Sites (ICOMOS). Its development was based on the

expert opinions received, legal documents gathered, and

scientic studies

. The preparation of the report followed

in-depth research and focused studies conducted to iden-

tify risks for the former German Nazi Concentration and

Extermination Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau ensuing from

threats associated with the planned investment. Acoustic

analyses were conducted, the noise impact on the quiet

zone generated by the road was assessed, and the impact

of lights on the Museum area was studied. A comprehen-

sive inventory of greenery was carried out, along with an

analysis of the possibility of using vegetation as a natural

shield for the road [19, p. 7]. Archaeological research in

the area designated for the bypass was conducted prior to

A comprehensive interdisciplinary study on the buer zones of

the Memorial and Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau and methods of its pro-

tection was conducted by the team of Jadwiga and Marek Rawecki. In

the late 1990s, they worked with the museum on an attempt to dene the

extent of its buer zones. Studies were also undertaken by the National

Centre for Research and Documentation of Heritage (KOBiDZ) in 2008–

2013. Continuing its work as the National Heritage Institute, the institu-

tion issued documents such as AuschwitzBirkenau,niemieckinazistowski

obóz koncentracyjny i zagłady (1940–1945). Strategia konserwator-

skadlamiejscaŚwiatowego Dziedzictwa. CzęśćI–II, ed. by A. Siwek,

O. Dy ba, A. Laskowski, R. Marcinek, and T. Śledzikowski, consulted by

A. Marconi-Betka and K. Piotrowska-Nosek [20] and AuschwitzBirke-

nau–niemieckinazistowskiobózkoncentracyjnyizagłady(1940–1945).

StrategiakonserwatorskadlamiejscaŚwiatowegoDziedzictwa.CzęśćIII

– krajobraz, ed. by B. Furmanik and G. Młynarczyk (graphic editor),

consulted by A. Marconi-Betka and A. Siwek [21]. Another important

document is Studiumkrajobrazowo-konserwatorskie,DrogaEkspresowa

S-1,odcinekwęzeł“KosztowyII”wMysłowicach–węzeł“SuchyPotok”

wBielsku-BiałejwciągukorytarzaeuropejskiegoNo.VI, by eM4 Pra-

cownia Architektury Brataniec under the supervision of Z. Mycz kowski

by U. Forczek-Brataniec, M. Brataniec, A. Siwek, B. Graj ner, and P. Byr-

ski [22]. It was used as the basis for making further recommendations for

the protection of the area during the planned development.

Fig. 4. Planned route of the S1 road in the vicinity

of the museum’s protective zones of the:

I. Boundaries of Auschwitz II-Birkenau Museum,

II. The Silent Zone, III. UNESCO Buffer Zone

(source: Site plan, technical solution No. 1,

attachment to the Report, [19])

Il. 4. Projekt przebiegu drogi S1 w pobliżu stref ochronnych muzeum:

I. Granice Muzeum Auschwitz II-Birkenau, II. Strefa Ciszy,

III. Strefa buforowa UNESCO

(źródło: Plan sytuacyjny, rozwiązanie techniczne nr 1,

załącznik do Raportu, [19])

 OświęcimringroaddevelopmentasUNESCOworldculturalheritagesitebuerzoneprotectioncasestudy 77

its construction to identify locations where ashes from the

crematoria might have been scattered so as to minimise

interventions into such areas. Eventually, the report served

as the basis for the drafting of construction documentation

incorporating the conclusions and studies. The project

uses mitigating and compensating solutions to reduce the

adverse impact of the construction on the surroundings and

the UNESCO buer zone. The road’s impact on the pan-

orama was addressed by running it at the lowest possible

level, introducing earth embankments and berms, and in-

stallation of green screens. The construction of pylons for

the bridge over the Soła was abandoned, and the crossing

with the railway line was designed as an underpass, which

eliminated the need for additional viaducts. The number of

intersections was reduced to the bare minimum, and even

the height of street lamps was reduced. The last change

was possible thanks to the introduction of a special type

of lighting (with less dispersion) and deployment of x-

tures only at intersections with local roads. Vertical mark-

ing was also reduced, and a “low-noise asphalt” surface

was used to minimise the noise. The nal version of the

document was presented to experts, along with the works

project incorporating all these solutions, during a joint ad-

visory mission of the World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS in

Oświęcim in October 2021. Representatives of ICOMOS,

local stakeholders (territorial authorities), representatives

of the government, and conservation services also partici-

pated in the meeting. The experts approved the presented

solutions and proposals, despite limitations related to the

blueprint of the ring road and lack of a plan for manag-

ing a world heritage site

that could clearly dene the

course of protective actions for the areas surrounding the

Museum. They also addressed the need to redene the

boundaries of the protective zone leading to the establish-

ment of a buer zone encompassing the “quiet zone” to-

gether with a wider area. In mid-October 2022, a decision

allowing the commencement of the road project (ZRID)

for the construction of the Oświęcim bypass in the course

of the S1 express-way from the Kosztowy II interchange

in Mysłowice to the Suchy Potok interchange in Bielsko-

Biała was issued. Budimex was named the contractor,

and the estimated project cost is approximately PLN 486

million. It is worth noting that the “Report” is a pioneer-

ing work among linear investments in protective zones in

the country not only in terms of the number of conducted

studies and consultations but also thanks to the identica-

tion of design solutions that minimise the impact of the

investment on a world heritage site. It must be emphasised

that the creation of this report did not result explicitly from

the provisions of the law Act on environmental informa-

tion and protection [23, Art. 59, Par. 1], which imposes

the requirement of conducting an assessment and prepar-

ing an environmental impact study for the project before

commencing linear investments. It should also be noted

that there was no requirement to obtain an administrative

The need to develop a plan or another system for managing

a UNESCO World Heritage site is indicated in the guidelines [2, Chap-

ter III.B, Par. 132, Item 5].

decision of competent heritage conservation services for

carrying out construction works [7, Art. 5, Par. 1, Item 7]

that, in this case, consisted in the construction of a ring

road in a UNESCO buer zone

. It is evident that, in this

case, all the actions taken by the Polish party and the in-

volvement of all stakeholders overseeing the implementa-

tion of the project in question had a positive eect, which

cannot be said about many other initiatives conducted in

buer zone areas

Conclusions

The example presented demonstrates in detail how cru-

cial it is to ne-tune the provisions regarding the protec-

tion of the surroundings of world heritage sites that exist

in Polish legislation. A study of existing solutions allows

us to identify the tools that can be helpful in ensuring

more ecient protection of designated buer zones.

One of such tools could be the inclusion of a designated

zone, being the surroundings of a heritage item or site, cul-

tural landscape, or – should there be suitable grounds for

that – a historic urban landscape, in the register of heritage

Extending such a form of protection to a buer zone

provides professional services, including the competent

regional heritage preservation ocers, with statutory au-

thority to supervise and control activities conducted in ar-

eas thus protected. Unfortunately, experience shows that

the administrative procedure for such proceedings is ex-

tremely tedious and complex. Furthermore, it very often

encounters resistance from the local community, who fear

additional hurdles and restrictions on the development of

the areas they inhabit. Ecient tools for the proper protec-

tion of the buer zone can also be provisions specifying

the manner of local development in detail, and included

in the study of conditions and directions for zoning (spa-

tial development) of the municipality and/or in local zon-

ing plans. These provisions can be dened by designers

while drafting the project or by the relevant authorities

participating in the administrative procedure, notably

by the relevant regional heritage preservation ocer

In the case of designing a construction, the Polish building law

[7] indicates the need to ensure protection of architectural objects en-

tered into the register of heritage. Yet the dened buer zone area has not

been entered as such into the register, which exempts the developer from

the need to obtain permits from heritage preservation services.

The decision to construct glass pavilions for managing tourist

trac in Bulwar Filadeljski in Toruń proved the signicance of this

challenging problem. Numerous heritage preservation experts believe

that their location in the immediate vicinity of the Old City, listed as

a UNESCO World Heritage site, may disrupt its panorama, thereby

altering the historical cultural landscape.

Art. 3, Pt. 14 and Pt. 15 of the Heritage protection act denes

the terms “cultural landscape” and “surroundings” in the following way:

[…] 14)Culturallandscape–aspacethatisconstruedbypeopleascon-

tainingelementsofnatureandworksofcivilisation,shapedinhistoryby

naturalfactorsandhumanactivity,15)Surroundings–theareaaround

ornearanelement of heritage,designatedin the decisiontoregister

suchanareaasheritagesoastopreservethescenicvaluesofsuchher-

itageandprotectingitfromharmfulexternalimpact [5].

The competencies of the regional heritage preservation ocer

for consulting zoning plans and studies are ensconced in Art. 11, Pt. 5,

sub-point c, and Art. 17, Pt. 6, sub-point b of the Act on spatial planning

78 Dominika Kinga Długosz

Recommendations provided by such regional heritage

preservation ocer for the local zoning plans can dene

the method of protecting the area, the conditions for car-

rying out development activities, conditions (incl. height

and dimensions) for new developments in buer zones,

and even the methods of managing a world heritage site.

What also seems appropriate is considering the option

to amend the provisions of the Act on heritage protection

and heritage care in such a way that it would expand the

and development [6] and also in Art. 19, Pt. 1, sub-point 3, and Art. 20 of

the Act on heritage protection [5].

catalogue of heritage protection forms by adding a “buer

zone”. The regulations contained in normative acts allow

increasing the eectiveness of protection through adminis-

trative decisions issued by qualied heritage preservation

services. It is extremely important to note that, as results

from the provisions arising from the inclusion of a particular

site with its protective zones on the UNESCO World Her-

itage List, all the tools described above should form an

integral whole. Introduction of coherent solutions into

the national legal system would enable eective control

of cases in which investment pressures and improper de-

cisions regarding the environment of a world heritage site

could lead to striking such a site o the UNESCO list.

[1] Konwencjawsprawieochronyświatowego dziedzictwa kultural-

negoinaturalnego,przyjętawParyżudnia16listopada1972r.

przezKonferencjęGeneralnąOrganizacjiNarodówZjednoczonych

dlaWychowania,NaukiiKulturynajejsiedemnastejsesji, Dz.U.

1976 nr 32, poz. 190, https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.

xsp?id=WDU19760320190 [accessed: 6.02.2023].

[2]

TheOperationalGuidelinesfortheImplementationoftheWorldHeri-

tageConvention, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris 31.06.2021,

http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines [accessed: 6.02.2023].

[3] Zalasińska K., Ochronamiejscświatowegodziedzictwawprawie

polskim – plan naprawczy, “Ochrona Zabytków” 2012, nr 3–4,

127–134.

[4] World Heritage and Buer Zones. Patrimoine mondial et zones

tampons, O. Martin, G. Piatti (eds.), World Heritage Papers Series

No. 25, UNESCO World Heritage Center, Paris 2009.

[5] Ustawazdnia23lipca2003r.oochroniezabytkówiopiecenad

zabytkami, Dz.U. 2022, poz. 840, https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/

DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20220000840 [accessed: 6.02.2023].

[6] Ustawa z dnia 7 lipca 1994 r. o planowaniu i zagospodarowa-

niu przestrzennym, Dz.U. 2022, poz. 503, https://isap.sejm.gov.

pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20220000503 [accessed:

6.02.2023].

[7]

Ustawazdnia7lipca1994r.Prawobudowlane, Dz.U. 2021, poz. 2351,

https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20210002351

[accessed: 6.02.2023].

[8] Szmygin B., Światowe Dziedzictwo Kultury UNESCO – charak-

terystyka, metodologia, zarządzanie, Polski Komitet Narodowy

ICOMOS, Politechnika Lubelska, Warszawa–Lublin 2016.

[9] Ustawazdnia2lipca1947r.oupamiętnieniumęczeństwaNaro-

duPolskiegoiinnychNarodówwOświęcimiu, Dz.U. 1947 nr 52,

poz. 265, https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=W-

DU19470520265 [accessed: 6.02.2023].

[10] Muzeumwdatach, Miejsce Pamięci i Muzeum Auschwitz-Birke-

nau były niemiecki nazistowski obóz koncentracyjny i zagłady,

https://www.auschwitz.org/muzeum/historia-muzeum/muzeum-w-

datach/ [accessed: 6.02.2023].

[11] Rawecka J., Rawecki M., Strefa Ochronna Auschwitz-Birkenau,

“Architektura i Biznes” 1999, nr 10(87), 40–42.

[12] Rawecki M., Auschwitz-Birkenau w kontekście miasta i Gminy

Oświęcim, [in:] ByłyniemieckiobózzagładyAuschwitz-Birkenau

–cz.1, “Spotkania z Zabytkiem” 2011, nr 3(5), 13–28.

[13] RozporządzenieMinistraKulturyiSztukizdnia9grudnia1957r.

w sprawie szczegółowego określenia granic terenów Pomnika

MęczeństwaNaroduPolskiegoiInnychNarodówwOświęcimiu,

Dz.U. 1958 nr 6, poz. 20, https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDe-

tails.xsp?id=WDU19580060020 [accessed: 6.02.2023].

[14] Rawecki M., StrefaAuschwitz-Birkenau, Wydawnictwo PŚl, Gli-

wice 2003.

[15] AuschwitzBirkenauGermanNaziConcentrationandExtermina-

tionCamp(1940–1945), UNESCO WHC, https://whc.unesco.org/

en/list/31/ [accessed: 6.02.2023].

[16] Ustawazdnia7maja1999r.oochronieterenówbyłychhitlerow-

skich obozów zagłady, Dz.U. 2015, poz. 2120, https://isap.sejm.

gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20150002120 [accessed:

6.02.2023].

[17] Uchwała XV/243/11 Rady Miasta Oświęcim zdnia 30 listopada

2011r.wsprawieuchwaleniamiejscowegoplanuzagospodarowa-

niaprzestrzennegodlaterenupołożonegowOświęcimiu,obejmu-

jącegoterenPomnikaZagłady,naktóregoobszarzepołożonyjest

PomnikMęczeństwaw Oświęcimiuwrazz jegostrefąochronną,

ustaloną Rozporządzeniem Ministra Spraw Wewnętrznych i Ad-

ministracjizdnia27maja1999r., Dz.Urz. Województwa Mało-

polskiego, 2011 nr 584, poz. 6672, http://edziennik.malopolska.

uw.gov.pl/legalact/2011/584/6672/ [accessed: 6.02.2023].

[18] RozporządzenieMinistraSprawWewnętrznychi Administracjizdnia

27 maja 1999 r.w sprawie określenia granic Pomnika Zagłady,

naktóregoobszarzepołożonyjestPomnikMęczeństwawOświę-

cimiu,orazobszaruigranicstrefyochronnejtegoPomnika, Dz.U.

1999 nr 47, poz. 473, https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.

xsp?id=WDU19990470473 [accessed: 6.02.2023].

[19] RaportzOcenyoddziaływanianadobroświatowegodziedzictwa

–Auschwitz-Birkenauniemiecki,nazistowskiobózkoncentracyjny

izagłady(1940–1945)dlainwestycjip.n.:Budowadrogiekspreso-

wejS1odwęzłaKosztowyIIw MysłowicachdowęzłaSuchyPotok

wBielsku-Białej, lipiec2018, oprac. Zespół Multiconsult, konsult.

A. Siwek, GDDKiA, dok. 4601-200 [manuscript in: the author’s

archive].

[20] Auschwitz Birkenau, niemiecki nazistowski obóz koncentracyjny

izagłady(1940–1945).StrategiakonserwatorskadlamiejscaŚwia-

towegoDziedzictwa.CzęśćIiII, A. Siwek et al. (oprac.), Kraków

2008 [manuscript in: NID, Warszawa].

[21] Auschwitz Birkenau – niemieckinazistowski obóz koncentracyjny

izagłady(1940–1945).StrategiakonserwatorskadlamiejscaŚwia-

towegoDziedzictwa,CzęśćIII – Krajobraz, B. Furmanik, G. Mły-

narczyk (oprac.), Warszawa 2013 [manuscript in: NID, Warszawa].

[22] eM4. Pracownia Architektury Brataniec, Studium krajobrazowo-

konserwatorskie dla inwestycji droga ekspresowa S-1 w rejonie

kompleksu Auschwitz II Birkenau, 2007, Z. Myczkowski et al.

(oprac.), Kraków 2007 [manuscript in: GDDKiA, Katowice].

[23] Ustawazdnia3października2008r. o udostępnianiu informacji

ośrodowiskuijegoochronie,udzialespołeczeństwawochronieśro-

dowiskaorazoocenachoddziaływanianaśrodowisko, Dz.U. 2022,

poz. 1029, https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=

WDU20220001029 [accessed: 6.02.2023].

References

 OświęcimringroaddevelopmentasUNESCOworldculturalheritagesitebuerzoneprotectioncasestudy 79

Abstract

Oświęcim ring road development as UNESCO world cultural heritage site buer zone protection case study

Studying the case of the construction of the ring road of Oświęcim in the vicinity of the former German Nazi concentration and extermination

camp Auschwitz-Birkenau (1940–1945), being a UNESCO World Heritage site, the article indicates the need for eective legal protection of an area

known as its buer zone. As current Polish regulations do not provide for such legal protection beyond ad hoc solutions (e.g., provisions included

in local zoning plans), the article discusses legal solutions existing in Polish legislation and recommends new ones that can be helpful in ensuring

eective protection of designated buer zones.

Listing a site as World Heritage sparks recognition yet entails numerous responsibilities. Since the list includes cultural and natural heritage

sites of “outstanding value” to humanity, the prerequisite to preserve their authenticity and integrity is of utmost importance. This also applies to

their surroundings. In many cases, the intrusion of such major engineering structures as bridges and highways constructed in the vicinity of a World

Heritage site ruins the view and has a negative impact on the cultural landscape developed throughout history. To avoid such cases, in recent years,

the UNESCO World Heritage Committee has taken action to promote the mandatory designation of an additional protective, or buer, zone around

the sites to be listed. At the same time, establishing legal protection of such zones in Polish law would make it possible to supervise and control

investment activities in such zones.

Key words: UNESCO, Memorial and Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau, buer zone, ring road, Oświęcim

Streszczenie

Prowadzenie obwodnicy Oświęcimia przykładem ochrony strefy buforowej miejsca kultury, pomnika UNESCO

Na przykładzie budowy obwodnicy Oświęcimia w sąsiedztwie byłego niemieckiego nazistowskiego obozu koncentracyjnego i zagłady

Auschwitz-Birkenau (1940–1945), wpisanego na Listę Światowego Dziedzictwa UNESCO w artykule wskazano potrzebę skutecznej ochrony praw-

nej obszaru zwanego strefą buforową. Ponieważ obecne polskie przepisy nie przewidują takiej ochrony prawnej poza rozwiązaniami doraźnymi

(np. zapisami zawartymi w miejscowych planach zagospodarowania przestrzennego), w pracy omówiono rozwiązania prawne istniejące w polskim

ustawodawstwie oraz zaproponowano nowe, które mogą być pomocne w zapewnieniu skutecznej ochrony wyznaczonych miejsc strefy buforowej.

Umieszczenie obiektu na Liście Światowego Dziedzictwa wiąże się z uznaniem, ale wiąże się też z wieloma obowiązkami. Ponieważ na liście

znajdują się obiekty dziedzictwa kulturowego i naturalnego o wyjątkowej wartości dla ludzkości, warunek wstępny zachowania ich autentyczności

i integralności jest sprawą najwyższej wagi. Dotyczy to również ich otoczenia. W wielu przypadkach wtargnięcie tak ważnych obiektów inżynieryj-

nych, jak mosty i autostrady w pobliże obiektów światowego dziedzictwa kulturowego psuje widok i ma negatywny wpływ na krajobraz kulturowy

rozwijający się na przestrzeni dziejów. Aby uniknąć takich przypadków, w ostatnich latach Komitet Światowego Dziedzictwa UNESCO podjął

działania promujące obowiązkowe wyznaczanie dodatkowej strefy ochronnej wokół obiektów, które mają zostać umieszczone na liście. Jednocześnie

ustanowienie w prawie polskim ochrony prawnej takich stref umożliwiłoby nadzór i kontrolę działalności inwestycyjnej w tych strefach.

Słowa kluczowe: UNESCO, Auschwitz-Birkenau, strefa buforowa, obwodnica, Oświęcim