World Heritage: Mt. Fuji - "Is Miho no Matsubara a Valid Component Asset? Questioning the Consistency Between ICOMOS Recommendations and the Committee"

Good evening. This is Liberta.
This time, I will be writing about the Mt. Fuji World Heritage Centre and Miho no Matsubara, which I visited in December 2024.
It is about 1200 characters, so you can read it in 2 or 3 minutes.

Main Text

Miho no Matsubara, a component asset of Mt. Fuji, is known for its scenery where green pines stand out against white sand and blue skies, as well as for the Hagoromo legend. However, can this landscape truly be considered a part of Mt. Fuji? During the World Heritage registration process in 2013, ICOMOS recommended excluding Miho from the component assets. There were two reasons for this. One was that it is located about 45 km away from the main body of Mt. Fuji, lacking topographical continuity. The other was that there were doubts regarding its authenticity and integrity as a landscape due to coastal protection works and the planting of pine trees. In fact, there are many factories along the nearby National Route 150, and traffic jams are common during commuting hours.

It was explained that Miho no Matsubara is a landscape that has been celebrated in waka poetry and paintings since ancient times and repeatedly depicted in ukiyo-e, and that its sense of unity with Mt. Fuji has been established through art and faith. In particular, the view of Mount Fuji through the pine grove, as seen in the works of Katsushika Hokusai and Utagawa Hiroshige, is a symbolic image of Japan known worldwide. Furthermore, the Hagoromo legend has crossed the sea and shown cultural expansion. This cultural symbolism became the basis for meeting registration criterion (vi), and Miho no Matsubara was included as a component asset. The Hagoromo legend also shares similarities with the Lorelei legend in that the beauty of a woman can lead people astray.

Let us return to the main topic. While the Miho case demonstrates the flexibility of the system, it also creates a gap in judgment between the evaluation body, ICOMOS, and the World Heritage Committee. ICOMOS made an exclusion recommendation based on objective evaluation, asserting issues of authenticity and integrity. On the other hand, it could be said that the Committee prioritized qualitative aspects such as symbolic value and cultural connection, leading to its registration as a component asset. This is the core of the consistency debate.
Looking abroad, in the case of the "Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments" in Russia, registered in 1990, the Oreshek Fortress, located 35 km away in a straight line from the central district, is included as a component asset. This was recognized under registration criteria (i), (ii), (iv), and (vi) due to historical consistency as a symbol of urban defense and authority. This is a case where the evaluations of ICOMOS and the Committee matched, and the circumstances of its registration differ from those of Miho no Matsubara.

World Heritage registration is premised on proving outstanding universal value. If exceptions are easily increased, the evaluation criteria will become ambiguous, which could leave a legacy of problems for future deliberations. If a discrepancy arises between ICOMOS recommendations and World Heritage Committee decisions, the credibility of the entire system will likely be shaken.

To prevent such discrepancies, it is essential to document and share the reasons when allowing exceptions. When evaluating something as a symbol or icon, as in the case of Mt. Fuji, the grounds—such as historical documents, artworks, and forms of faith—must be clearly stated and accumulated as criteria for future judgments. It is also necessary to have a system in place to strengthen post-registration monitoring and periodically verify the maintenance status of authenticity and integrity. In the case of Miho no Matsubara, conservation activities such as pine needle raking at Miho-shirube are currently being continued. These activities are increasing in cultural significance as personal experiences and as part of education.
The landscape woven by Mt. Fuji and Miho no Matsubara has been loved across generations as a mental image for the Japanese people, and at the same time, it is a case where the judgments of ICOMOS and the World Heritage Committee intersected. It makes one think about the balance between consistency and flexibility in the system, and it is an issue related to credibility among the five Cs, which are the strategic objectives for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention.

(Character count: 1295 characters)

Thoughts on writing this

Thank you for your hard work.
I can write this in about an hour if I just dash it off, but it takes time to gather overseas examples and evidence. Also, the ending might be a bit weak... well, let's call that a charm point, haha.
But that is a necessary process for cementing memories.

For me, born in Shizuoka Prefecture, Mt. Fuji has always been a presence that is just naturally there. But if you unravel its history, there are eruptions, worship from afar, mountain climbing, and faith.
Regarding Miho no Matsubara, which is 45 km away, I personally don't think the distance is an issue.
For faith, 45 km is like being neighbors.

I think this case of Mt. Fuji was a real-life experience where, even if something is right in front of you, you can see different aspects of it depending on the breadth of your knowledge and your perspective.
I am in my 40s, but even as I get older,
if the way I see things keeps changing like this,
the colored pencils of my life will surely become so numerous that they won't fit in the case.

Reference Materials

Textbook

Vol. 1, p. 156: Mt. Fuji
Vol. 2, p. 158: Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg
Vol. 2, p. 252: Middle Rhine Valley

Reference Sites

Mt. Fuji World Heritage Centre

Tokyo National Research Institute for Cultural Properties

https://www.tobunken.go.jp/materials/nenshi/236712.html

Resilient Cultural Landscape of Mt. Fuji, a World Heritage Site

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jrca/21/2/21_93/_pdf/-char/ja?utm_source=chatgpt.com

UNESCO Website: Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg

Loreley Legend (World Heritage: Middle Rhine Valley)

Mt. Fuji Mountain Railway Concept

Eating local food is part of the World Heritage experience

Fujinomiya Yakisoba

Thank you for reading again this time.
Look forward to the next 'Yondeko'.

Fin.