THE ROUND TABLE SEMINAR CULTURAL MANAGEMENT AND INNOVATIVE CULTURAL POLICY FOR TOURISM

THE ROUND TABLE SEMINAR CULTURAL MANAGEMENT AND INNOVATIVE CULTURAL POLICY FOR TOURISM REPORT TBILISI 2005

Date of seminar: June 10-12. 2005 Address: 45. I. Chavchavedze ave. Tbilisi. Georgia. Tbilisi. I. Chavchavadze state university of language and culture. Austrian culture centre (new building) Organizer of the seminar: Intercultural communication (tourism) centre of Tbilisi I. Chavchavadze state university of language and culture. Project is conducting under the support of UNESCO Moscow office. FOREWORD Support of tourism development was recognized by the Georgian authority (President, Parliament, and Government) as one of the main priority in country s development. 50-60 years history of country s development (except last 10-12 years) clearly shows that tourism was well developed and was serious financial source for Georgia. By the data of 90-s of last century average of tourists in Georgia every year were more than 4 million. Some of the most important monuments of cultural inheritance were included in the list of world cultural treasure and announced under protection of UNESCO, which was big recognition of Georgian culture. After collapse of Soviet Union, situation was changed completely. Existed very difficult political condition (still part of territories Autonomic republic of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region are out of jurisdiction) and because of very difficult economic and social condition were destroyed mechanisms of country s industry management and it has damaged also tourism. Because of big part of refugees within the country (300 000 people), mistakes in state property privatization process, planning state development and not-adequate management process tourism as a sphere must be created and developed from the very beginning: material-technical base is destroyed; has to be reconstructed whole infrastructure; has been started preparation of staff for tourism from the beginning (last 5-6 years); This is the background, which is in Georgia. As we mentioned before the new government recognized tourism development, as one of the main priority in country s development, but mostly activities are not-adequate. What we mean: 1. 1. The possible perspectives of tourism development in Georgia are described in an official document National Concept and Acting Program of Tourism Development in Georgia. Has to be mentioned that this document was prepared in 2002-2003 and is based on elaborated projects and conclusions of international experts in 1998-2001; Coming out from the mentioned (we say nothing about the meaning of the document) it is just obsolete; it is a product of government, which was replaced by revolution (Rose revolution). Especially has to be mentioned that department of tourism doesn t speak about re-elaboration of the document and on the Round Table Seminar was presented existent version of the concept as a main report (the full version of the concept is in annexes).

2. 2. Results of conducted reforms during the last two years are that was abolished independent department of tourism and with staff of 10 persons joined ministry of economic development as department and this is a time when international experts give recommendations to create ministry of tourism; Was abolished Tbilisi municipal tourism service and join municipal service of economic development as one person staff; Were cancelled regional tourism coordinators and etc. 3. 3. Despite of declared priorities no positive changes are occurred not for country and not for local budget; on the contrary, finances are decreasing. Shortly this is the tourism background for this moment, before conducting the Round Table Seminar. Preparation activities of the Round Table Seminar During the preparation stage (January-February), considering general directions defined in the contract (4 main themes) has prepared proper letter and by the name of our university was sent to interested in mentioned problem representatives of state authorities, NGO s and business sector. At the same time we have used method of telephone questioning (especially to find out attitude of NGO s considering The Round Table - Seminar). After first results, when we had circle of concrete interested persons we started working with state department of tourism (chairman S. Kiknadze; deputy chairman G. Kuparadze; expertconsultant K. Stainmetzer) and was elaborated list of concrete tasks, which was offered as agenda of the seminar to participants (50-55 persons) and asked to make proper changes and additions. Across we had consultations with the Ministry of Culture, Sport and Protecting Monuments, Tbilisi municipality and etc. After ending of preparation period we got as agenda of the seminar, also final list of participants (see materials). Common remarks and opinions considering the seminar We have to mention some circumstances that determine relations of state, non-governmental and business organizations to similar events. 1. 1. International organizations, embassies, representations of friendly countries acting in Georgia very often conduct similar events. During the last few years calendar for such events was so busy that in order to activate/interest participants organizers were using different methods: conducting event in a prestigious hotels, prestigious resorts and even abroad very often. 2. 2. A quantity of events, programs, offers and recommendations doesn t effect on the problem itself. No scale event/program was realized in a field of tourism and preserving cultural heritage. What happened with tourism department, we have mentioned above. Activity of Preserving cultural heritage foundation (project of World Bank), still is a subject of serious discussion. 3. 3. In the terms of united state programs/strategy and even development concept absence, state institutions decide what to do and when. In one way it isn t bad, but when such activity is not coordinated, directed in one direction and what is most important, is realizing incompetent results are extremely hard.

(During preparation and conducting period of our seminar, best example of mentioned above was relation between Tourism department and Ministry of culture, sport and protecting monuments). Interest to such events is decreasing (from where practically has benefit, even department of tourism, which is trying to save its own position), because of mentioned reasons (it is hard to list all of them) and we have to consider this for the next time (we had additional effort to retain and activity for the seminar). Shortly we can say if we can not include the first persons of the country in the event, it does not matter how important it is, remains in the hope of small group of enthusiast specialists. Have to be mentioned severally one more moment, which considers conducting events (no matter of meaning and scale) in institutes of high education (ones it was very prestigious and interesting). The institutes of high education of Georgia has faced serious problems, because of conducting reforms (new law, total staff changes, massive discharge and etc.) in country s system of high education, what itself effects and will effect on relations with them. For the time being institutes of high education can not solve their own serious problems and what is conducting in these institutions (even the event conducting under support of such prestigious organization as UNESCO), if it does not contains elements of governmental/political intrigue/show remains out of society s attention (media does not come even close to that kind of events). By our opinion, these are tasks that have to be considered, concerning conducting possible events in the nearest perspective. We want to underline one more circumstance: Despite of private contacts, official invitations and notices, representatives of Georgian national offices of UNESCO and ICOMOS. In one way, it is incomprehensible, but from the other it is absolutely symptomatic, coming out from mentioned above. The Round Table Seminar Cultural Management and Innovative Cultural Policy for Tourism I day June 10, 2005 Note: During conducting process had been made some corrections in conducting process, in cooperation with tourism department: 1. 1. Principles of task discussion was created as follows: a. a. Official/state view of the task was set by the Tourism department; b. b. The base documents of Tourism department were presented by National Concept and State Program of Tourism Development in Georgia and Acts of Legislation #2 of Georgia Tourism and Resorts 1999 ; c. c. Alternative variant basically was presented by Tbilisi Culture and Tourism Concept 2004 prepared by the coalition of NGOs. d. d. Visual material The Cultural Tourism Development Resource Potential of Georgia - was presented by Intercultural Communication (Tourism) Centre;

2. 2. On the first half of the session was presented positions and main problems; The second half was focus on common discussion and preparation of recommendations; 3. 3. For correct organization of task s discussion and proper management of program, functions of seminar facilitator was taken by Head of Intercultural Communication (Tourism) Centre K. Arabuli. P.S. Despite of official demands, reports (prepared beforehand materials) except materials mentioned above were not prepared and send by participants and this was the reason of caused corrections. Official opening of the seminar: a. a. On behalf of Tourism Department G. Kuparadze, Deputy Chairman; b. b. On behalf of organizer K. Arabuli, The Head of The Intercultural Communication (Tourism) Centre; First session: a a Analysis of country s resource potential; b. b. Positive experience of developed countries; c. c. Experience of Georgian tourism (old - newest) - positive and negative aspects; Official position: Cultural tourism is one of the main and competitive directions of tourism development in Georgia. Country s resource potential (historical-cultural heritage, diversification of ethnic culture and etc.), gives possibilities to create diversified and modern adequate tourist product in mentioned direction. Have to be mentioned fact that during the tens of year base for tourism activity (both domestic and international) was and still remains cultural heritage of Georgia and founded on this base discovery tourism. During the regional analysis were presented experiences of our nearest countries Iran (1 million cultural tourists) and Turkey. According to tourism department view, which is establishing, direct contract relations with neighbour countries, Georgia has possibilities to act role of regional leader in mentioned direction. It was underlined that tourism, especially cultural tourism, must be developed without borders and policy. Analysing today s tourism condition, must be underlined that in Georgia are registered more than 500 travel companies; but only 7 companies bring tourists from abroad and 5 on domestic tourism. Rest of them are taking tourists out of country (90% are fixing visas). Mentioned statistic is some kind of characterisation of Georgian tourism. Alternative view: Considerations are common positive and perspective, according task s development possibilities. Tourism and especially cultural tourism was recognized as one of the main priorities of country s development. Without of foresights of expressed considerations and notes, will be impossible to create competitive product and to bring to modern tourist market.

Extremely difficult condition of cultural heritage monuments (as Jvari monastery which under UNESCO protection, Svetitskhoveli treasure of World culture and etc.). On the background of difficult conditions of most important monuments, does not worth to speak about the monuments of regional importance. Infrastructure, which does not satisfy modern tourism demands, even in Tbilisi and deserves very strict evaluations from international experts, but situation, is changing very slowly. Low level of service culture/class; serious insufficiency of professional staff. It was mentioned problems with different orientation, which hampers seriously tourism development and also taking after business of monuments of cultural heritage: 1) 1) Belonging of existent historic-architectural monument on the territory of Georgia: part of monuments belongs to church (very immersive part),part to department of protecting monuments; their approach and dependence about monuments and taking care and their exploitation are completely different and most of the time they can not find a consensus. Situation become even more difficult, after Georgian church and the Government has signed a contract. According to active legislation, there is one more classification - state and local importance of material cultural monuments and accordingly, tasks of care are divided. Because local budgets are very low, there is no income from active tourism (legislation can not regulate mentioned tasks), interest of cultural heritage monuments condition and target business (tourism) is extremely low from representatives of local authority and population. 2) 2) Programmes and projects prepared by authoritarian international organizations (UNESCO, UN, World Bank and etc.), could not find legislative and governmental support (realization). The classic example is the project of old capital of Georgia city museum, Mtskheta, it lies on the rack, when with violation of all standards, in the historical part of the Mtskheta are constructing new buildings (mentioned tendencies found place in Tbilisi and other cities of Georgia). 3) 3) In the high echelons of government do not want to understand that tourism and especially cultural tourism has to be considered together with science. Practically does not exist profile scientific-research institutes. The only active institution is monument protection administration. It belongs to ministry of culture, sport and protecting monuments and mentioned ministry decide all tasks (functionaries, but not specialists). 4) 4) Until now nobody has worked on task as calculation ability and carrying capacity of historical-cultural monuments. Does not exist conceptual document concerning sustainable development of cultural tourism. The classic example of not regulated tourist stream and reloading is Uplistsikhe (VIII-VI century B.C.). Mentioned problem is very important for saving objects of cultural heritage, environment (landscape) ecosystem and ethnic culture. 5) 5) Concerning the legislation were expressed concrete remarks about privatization and state-owned process. In some of circumstances, when there are no regulated obligations, we just perish cultural monuments. 6) 6) During discussion about resource potential of cultural tourism, the subject of special attention became task of service culture. Were expressed serious evaluation: water is life, sanitary science honour! In such case we have to admit that we live unworthily. 7) 7) Were expressed remarks, which disturbs tourism development in any direction:

Tourism has to be freed from Soviet Intourist syndrome. Has to be developed equally both international and domestic tourism; Has to be paid serious attention to preparation task of qualified guides and tour guides; Second Theme: Analyze of Georgian Tourist routes (in the aim of establishing the correspondence towards International standards): Questions: a) The main factors for development of tourism in Georgia; b) The main problems of adaptation of tourism routes; - c) Conception (model) of development Tbilisi culture and tourism; Official Positions: Connecting to the abovementioned questions there is directly fixed an official position of department in the active program and national conception of development in Georgia (pg. 3-23). It s worth mentioning that in the processes of preparing the seminar representatives of the department expressed their opinion about taking/changing the abovementioned theme. Motive: Roads don t exist any more (!) and so it will not be interesting. Alternative opinions: - - There was pointed synonymously, that the relations of tourist department towards tourism roads isn t correct; - - When estimating the present tourist roads (when corresponding analyze towards international standards) there were noted: a) a) Tourism companies mainly use with main transport main line approbated for decades (Tbilisi-Mtskheta-Gori-Uplistsikhe/Athens); Tbilisi-Borjomi-Akhaltsikhe-Vardzia; Tbilisi- Kutaisi; Tbilisi-Telavi; Tbilisi-Kazbegi and so on) which are difficult to be considered as tourist routes; b) b) Roads of local appointments and mostly central main lines, aren t equipped with necessary roads and informational means, which will provide with necessary service as tourist groups as visitors arrived with individual program; c) c) Neither central main lines nor inner town and local meaning roads aren t equipped with special road system formed by tourism international organization which is the necessary service attribute for today s tourists; d) d) Country s road infrastructure is in catastrophic condition (mainly local roads) at this time there is no service of monitoring and information because of which in some case, success/failure of tourist programs depends on skill of guides and drivers and personal contacts (additional problems will arise in zones, which can t be covered by cellular connection system and it s impossible to use mobile telephones); e) e) In spite of traditional orientation of the country the existing preparing-establishing practice of informational and advertisement materials (if there is made anything new it happens just once a year materials by which Georgia, different tourist companies go into the International marketing, practically doesn t exist in local marketing for Tbilisi tourist

marketing); Also it s not absolutely sufficient the network s gathering-spreading conditions of such materials (practically it s forming just now/it must be formed). - - As the alternative variant the theme about tourist routes are examined a conception about development of culture and tourism of Tbilisi (the material is attached to the account). As the concrete practical variant had been examined the authorized theme-route modern in Tbilisi); - - As analyzing the tourist routes (especially the representatives of tour companies) the routes service moved forward questions of guides, excursion drivers (especially working at the place) the qualification; There was noted the lowest level of the preparation (if any). There was held a very interesting discussion between so-called theoreticians and practitioners about opportunities and various ness of the cultural tourist routes and about the practice of their preparation and usage. There was noted that the tourist companies used just a few part (10-15%) of existed opportunities; Among the reasons, except of already mentioned ones, there were named the deficit of financial means for qualification study of tourist marketing and for preparing corresponding tourist productions (as in the country as in the private sector). There was given some opinions about necessity and usefulness of cooperation between state, private and non governmental sectors; - - Active tour operators, as the subject of professional study and decision, considered the regulation of problems such as forming the system of quotas and discounts in transport and tourist s accommodation means (according the routes) for tour operators. II day June 11, 2005 Third Theme Modern forms and methods of presentation of cultural sightseeing (the cultural inheritance); The condition of statues and the possible routes: Subjects: a) A analyze of the statues of the cultural inheritance; b) The opportunities of development of cultural tourism (variants of routes) c) The possibilities of adaptation of cultural statues of Georgia; d) The opportunities of modern management for the museums and housemuseums; By the opinion of the seminar participants, the first two problems of the theme were discussed the day before; therefore the discussion mainly was made for the left two subjects and problems connected with them. Official Position: Official position analyzed just the essential legislative basis (law: about culture 1997, about defense of cultural inheritance 1999, about museum 2001, Georgian tax code 2004 ); There was also mentioned the usefulness of bringing together the positions of interested institutions (Georgian patriarchy, Ministry of culture, sport and statues defence, the tourism department of ministry of economical development) and harmonizing the law. Alternative Opinions:

- - Culture and tourism (because of already mentioned and other objective and subjective reasons) mainly depend on enthusiastic (on their strength, conscience, energy) opportunities. State policy about priority of culture and tourism mainly is just declared. - - To care of movable and immovable monuments of cultural inheritance and their corresponding exploitation has to be built on a base of a new philosophy: a) a) It s necessary to think how to remake the cultural/historical monument into national/public monuments/objects, for resting places of people (not only for tourists); b) b) It s necessary to study intensively the international experience and to form and realize acceptable news scheme/programs for Georgian reality. Otherwise objects/statues will be abolished and make it as an object for single sight. It s necessary to form the programs for their adaptation; according these, as the variants had been examined the conception of development of Tbilisi culture and tourism, as well as the program of Shatili steady regeneration (group of the authors: L. Vardosanidze, K. Arabuli, V. Chincharauli and others), who were prepared in the limits of world bank program, though these variants had been put on the shelf as the others had. c) c) It s necessary to look through/work out (especially there was noted the position of museums and house-museums) the tax code about culture and tourism (in today s variant it is named as a so called black anecdotes.); d) d) Serious attention is needed for preparation of necessary museums workers. There was mentioned that practically we don t have professional workers, none of the higher Institutes prepare them, and there is no specialty museum knowledge and so on. There was synonymously noted the hard social situation of museum s collaborators monthly salary is 15-30 equivalent of dollar. - - There was named a qualified discussion about such questions, as finding business-partners for museums and preparing business-projects (necessity of making independent budget). There was noted the variants of preparing the maximal copies of interesting and popular movable statues with connection to mint; - - Subject of special discussion became state s non-adequate relation to cultural inheritance statues for example the variants of Tbilisi museum (Karvasla), Mtskheta territory of Svetitskoveli and Djvari Churches, Borjomi park of the city. Forth theme modern forms and methods of integration of local citizenship in tourist business: a) a) Tourism and perspectives of municipal development; b) b) Activation of local theme - maximal usage of the reassures; c) c) Local self-management base of municipal development. For analyzing state position there was used organic law about local management and selfmanagement (participants of the seminar: L. Vardosanidze, K. Arabuli were the group who worked with corresponding low packet) and declaration of the country s first persons about maximal support for development of small business. Alternative points of view: - - For interests of citizens and as a necessary preconditions of integration are considered:

a) a) Informing the local citizens and necessity of corresponding preparation (legislative, economical and so on). There was mentioned that absolute majority of citizens doesn t know what to do and when in their territory (there is not local practice of strategic planning) what has changed the new law in their lives, what real chances they have and so on. b) b) Discussion of the programs of development field in the conditions of wide public and maximal support of local proposals/initiatives; e) e) The possibility of managing the finances that are transferred in local budget from the museum development and local culture (and not only) monuments. There had been noted that It is not correct to speak about the integration of population without forming corresponding mentality and their self-consciousness and without considering themselves as the participants of the positive processes. At the end of the thematic discussion there was choused (by the principle of volunteer) the group of interested participants, who worked on the essential reconditions of the seminar at the last day of the seminar (June 12, 2005). GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS Common conclusions concerning development perspectives of cultural tourism: 1. 1. Cultural tourism is one of the main and competitive directions of tourism development in Georgia. Country s resource potential (historical-cultural heritage, diversification of ethnic culture and etc.), gives possibilities to create diversified and modern adequate tourist product in mentioned direction. 2. 2. in the condition of not existed common conception and proper strategy of country s sustainable development, is vitally important elaboration of similar conceptions and strategies of sector and regional development, which will be united in one program (if something is not making from above, is necessary active impact from below); 3. 3. It is impossible to speak about cultural management and innovative cultural policy: Without created, coordinated activity concerning state, NGO s and business sector interests (especially, when country does not have single possibilities, business sector is in the period of formation and does not have necessary capacity and etc); Without existence of professionally trained high class staff for field s management and development on all levels; Without proper scientific bases and recommendations preparation (concerning field s dynamic action, this has to be a everlasting process); Without consistent and logical policy (when we speak about priorities, it has to be seen and felt everywhere and on all levels). RECOMMENDATIONS To Georgian Parliament: It is very important to elaborate common national conception of Georgia s sustainable development (Rio-1992, Johannesburg-2002 and etc.), which would created argued base for elaboration for sector and regional development; Has to be elaborated legislative package ( not changes in different legislation acts, which gives no results) maximum support of culture and tourism joint development; Has to be restarted discussions and prepared final version of bill concerning welfare;

Has to be examined Internal Revenue Code of Georgia ; Has to be finished formation of legislation package concerning state arrangement and decentralization of government To executive authorities (Ministry of culture and Tourism department): Has to be made practically from the beginning, National Conception and Action Program of Tourism Development in Georgia (this process has to be common and transparent); Urgent aim is elaboration of common cultural policy and its support with proper projects (this process has to be common, not only for narrow circle of officials); It is necessary to reconstruct working style (among each other maximum coordination and concerning society); I t is necessary to learn positive experience of leading tourist countries and adjust suitable model for Georgia s reality and perspective (it is not necessary to invent Georgian bicycle); P.S. Concrete opinions, concerning separate tasks, you can see in report. Participants of the Round Table Seminar are grateful to UNESCO Moscow office for supporting and express following considerations: The problem is difficult and multidimensional and is impossible to examine and solve in the scopes of one seminar (examination of all problems in one seminar does not give us possibilities of concentration). Coming out from mentioned above we think not to end seminar (discussion is opened and has to be continued), but continue during whole year with program that we could conduct 10-12 thematic seminars in all regions of Georgia (one seminar, one region). Representatives of Tbilisi, Mtskheta and Bojomi are ready to be host of mentioned seminars. Offer is interesting and necessary and in case of UNESCO s support, the Intercultural Communication (Tourism) Centre of Tbilisi I. Chavchavadze s State University of Language and Culture take part in the process of seminar preparation and conducting. AGENDA Round Table Seminar Cultural Management and Innovative Cultural Policy for Tourism Date of seminar: June 10-12. 2005 Address: 45. I. chavchavedze ave. Tbilisi. Georgia. Tbilisi. I. Chavchavadze state university of language and culture. Austrian culture centre (new building) Organizer of the seminar: Intercultural communication (tourism) center of Tbilisi I. Chavchavadze state university of language and culture. Project is holding under the support of UNESCO Moscow Office Main themes of round table seminar

Perspectives of cultural tourism development Analysis of Georgian tourist routs (according to international standards) Modern forms and methods of cultural sightseeing (monuments of cultural inheritance) presentation. Monuments condition and possible routs. Modern forms and methods of local population integration in tourism business. Friday. 10 June 2005 10.00 opening of the seminar Program of the round table seminar David Saganelidze Comity of Health and Social Issues of Georgia Parliament. Deputy Chairman Saba Kiknadze Tourism Department of Georgian Economic Development Ministry. Chairman Nicoloz Vacheishvili Ministry of Culture, Monuments Preserving and Pport. Deputy Minister Koba Arabuli Intercultural Communication (Tourism) Centre of Tbilisi I. Chavchavadze State University of Language and Culture. Director 10.30-10.45 Familiarize goals and aims, working principles of Round Table Seminar. K. Arabuli 10.45-12.00 Main report of first block representatives of cultural tourism development a. Analysis of country s resource potential b. Positive experience of developed countries c. Experience of Georgian tourism (old - newest) - positive and negative aspects Main reporters: S. Kiknadze, K. Steinmetzer, K. Arabuli 12.00-12.15 Coffee break 12.15 14.00 discussion on main tasks of the first block. 14.00 15.00 Dinner 15.00 16.15 Main report of second block analysis of Georgian tourist routs (according to international standards) a. Main assistance factors of Georgian tourism development b. Main aims of tourist routs adaptation c. Tbilisi culture and tourism concept (as model) Main reporters: G. kuparadze, D. Saganelidze, N. Gunia 16.15 16.30 coffee break 16.30 18.00 - discussion on main tasks of second block

Saturday. 11 June. 2005 10.00 11.15 main report of third block modern forms and methods of cultural sightseeing (monuments of cultural inheritance presentation). Monument s condition and possible routs: a. Analysis of monuments of cultural inheritance b. Possibilities of cultural tourism development (variations of routs) c. Adaptation possibilities of Georgian cultural monuments d. Possibilities of modern management for museums and house-museums Main reporter: D. Ninidze, D. Lortkipanidze, T. Bibiluri 11.15 12.00 coffee break 12.00 14.00 discussion on main tasks of third block 14.00 15.00 dinner 15.00 16.15 - main report of forth block modern forms and methods of local population integration in tourism business a. Tourism and perspectives of municipal development b. Activation of local community base of municipal development Main reporters: V. Vardosanidze, N. Machaladze, N. Saakashvili, 16.15 16.30 coffee break 16.30 18.00 discussion on main tasks of forth block Sunday: 12 June 2005 10.00-14.00 elaboration of proposals and recommendations for representatives of Georgia s legislative and executive authority 11.15 12.00 coffee break

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 1 David Saganelidze Comity of Health and Social Issues Parliament of Georgia - Deputy Chairman 2 Petre Metreveli Comity of Education, Sciences, Culture and Sport Parliament of Georgia 3 Nicoloz Vacheishvili Ministry of Culture, Monument Preserving and Sport - Deputy Minister 4 David Okitashvili Department of Cultural and Sport events of ministry of culture, Monuments preserving and sport head of department 5 Saba Kiknadze Tourism Department of Georgia s Ministry of Economic Development - Chairman 6 Gigi kuparadze Tourism Department of Georgia s Ministry of Economic Development - Deputy Chairman 7 Karen Steinmetcer Tourism Department of Georgia s Ministry of Economic Development - Adviser of Chairman 8 Beka Djakeli Tourism Department of Georgia s Ministry of Economic Development 9 David Lordkipanidze The National museum of Georgia - Director 10 Revaz Aitsuradze Sakrebulo of Tbilisi - Chairman of faction 11 Sopo Kirvalidze Sakrebulo of Tbilisi - staff 12 Irina Patarkadze Sakrebulo of Tbilisi - staff 13 Archil Mestvirishvili Department of Economic Development of Tbilisi Municipality - Chairman 14 Nugzad Chincharauli Department of Economic Development of Tbilisi Municipality - staff 15 Nata Machaladze Department of Education and Culture of Tbilisi Municipality - Chairman 16 David Gochashvili Department of education and culture of Tbilisi Municipality - Deputy Chairman 17 Tengiz Gavasheli Department of Education and Culture of Tbilisi Municipality 18 Tea Giorgadze Department of Education and Culture of Tbilisi Municipality 19 Murtaz Sichinava Department of Education and Culture of Tbilisi Municipality 20 Giorgi Avaliani Department of Economic Development of Tbilisi Municipality - staff 21 Irakli Metreveli UNESCO Tbilisi office 22 Merab Bochoidze ICOMOS Tbilisi office 23 Elza Djgerenaia Parliament of Georgia 24 David Abuladze Union of Architects of Georgia - Chairman 25 David Ninidze Preserving Cultural Inheritance Foundation - Chairman 26 Lali Revia Informational Centre for Tourism of Mtskheta-Mtianeti Region Head of Centre 27 Merab Topuria Governor s office Mtskheta-Mtianeti Region - staff 28 Shalva Khamkhadze Mayor of Mtskheta 29 Nino Khachidze / Zaur Chairman of Sakrebulo (organ of self-government) of Borjomi Gogoladze 30 Beka Jumutia Municipal Foundation of Cultural Preserving - Chairman of the Board 31 Nino Gunia Municipal foundation of cultural preserving - Coordinator 32 Nana kipiani Art Expert 33 Levan Khetaguri Caucasian University in Tbilisi - Chairman 34 Guja Bubuteishvili Company Saradjishvili - President 35 Ia Tabagari Travel company - Caucasus Travel

36 George Kalandadze Travel company - Georgia travel - President 37 Alexandre Travel company - Visit Georgia - President Mamulashvili 38 Mirian Kululashvili Travel company - Exo Tour Manager 39 Nodar Komakhidze Travel company - Argo Tour - President 40 Kote Pataraia Travel Company Mtscheta - President 41 Nana Meparishvili Company Arsi Project Georgian House - Manager 42 Jana Marsagishvili «Kazbegi» Ltd. 43 Temur Bibiluri City-museum of Mtskheta - Director 44 Nino Saakashvili Horizonti Foundation - Director 45 Ia Tikanadze Ebert Foundation - Director 46 Nugzar Dvali «Alioni» - president of company 47 Lika Katsitadze Institute of cooperation between International association of National Universities - coordinator 48 Vladimer Vardosanidze Association of Urbanists of Georgia - Chairman 49 Nestan Tatarashvili Architect-reconditioner. Head of Group «Protecting Modern of Georgia» 50 Vaja Chincharauli Local Community NGO Shatili - Chairman 51 Guram Simonishvili Movement for Sustainable Development of Georgia - so-chairman 52 Ema Djanuashvili Institute of Economy and Law of Tbilisi deputy rector 53 Nino Pavliashvili NGO «СТС» 54 Neli Magalashvili Intercultural Communication (tourism) Centre - teacher 55 Maia Sakhltkhutsishvili Magazine «Kaukasische Post» 56 Knut Gerber Expert of GTZ in Georgia 57 Maia Meladze Tbilisi State University 58 Giorgi Mchedlishvili Tbilisi State University 59 Maka Apxazava Tourism Faculty of Munich University - student 60 Givi Tsereteli Tbilisi I. Chavchavadze State University of Language and Culture 61 Koba Arabuli Intercultural Communication (tourism) Centre of Tbilisi I. Chavchavadze State University of Language and Culture - Head of the Center