• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

第５６回　WORKSHOP報告（３月１６日） / 参加者９５名

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

《　今回のworkshop　》

 

○workshop参加人数：９５名（うち新人の方：６名）

 

○【前半】：「新商品の開発」をテーマとしたワーク

 

○【後半】：「世界遺産のシステム」をテーマとしたディスカッション

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

（１：新人の方の自己紹介です。100人弱の人の前では緊張しますよね）

 

 

（２：こちらも新人の方です）

 

 

（３：議論は盛り上がりましたか？）

 

 

（４：楽しさが伝わってきますね）

 

 

（５：Nさん、これまでありがとうございました！）

 

************************************************************************

 

みなさんこんにちは！

3/16（土）に行われた第５６回workshopの報告をさせていただきます。

 

今回も９５人の方にお越しいただき、盛況のworkshopとなりました。

前半はTさんによる「新商品の開発」に取り組むワークでした。

ジャンルは「食」だったのですが、Tさんはお菓子作りがとても

お上手だと聞いています。

また後半は幹事のSさんによる、「世界遺産のシステム」を

テーマとしたディスカッションだったのですが、

Sさんは海外旅行経験がとても豊富で、workshopまた懇親会でも

Sさんから旅行の話をしていただけるときはとても盛り上がります。

 

お二人とも、ご自身の得意分野をテーマにされた

とても興味深いマテリアルでした。

お忙しい中作成をありがとうございました。

 

そして、今回は2012年度最後のworkshopということで

今回のご参加を最後に、大阪を離れられるスタッフやメンバーの

方が複数名おられました。

 

中でもNさん、Hさんのお二人には会のスタッフとして

ご活躍いただき、Nさんは秋の英語合宿のリーダーとして

メンバーを引っ張ってくれました。

 

そんなお二人のお人柄を反映してか、

workshop後の懇親会ではお二人への寄せ書きや

プレゼント、またたくさんの方から感謝のメッセージが

送られていました。

 

みなさんの新天地でのご活躍をお祈りいたします。

また帰阪された際にはぜひworkshopにお立ち寄りください！

 

それでは今回のworkshop案内メールをご覧ください。

 

**********************************************************

 

＜英語サークル　E’s club　第５６回workshopのご案内＞

 

みなさまこんにちは、E’s club幹事のKです。第５６回workshopの詳細をお送りいたします。

 

今回は前半のマテリアルをTさん、後半のマテリアルを幹事のSさんに作成していただきました。

前半では「新商品の開発」をテーマとしたワークを、

後半では「世界遺産のシステム」をテーマとしたディスカッションを行ないます。

 

[今週のマテリアル]

＜FIRST HALF＞

今回前半のマテリアルを担当させていただきますTと申します。よろしくお願い致します。

 

前半のテーマは「新商品の開発」です。新商品のジャンルは”食”とさせて頂きます。

 

日本の食文化は多種、多様であり、伝統的な日本食だけでなく異国の料理を取り入れ更にそれをアレンジしています。

 

パスタやカレーなどオリジナルとは違うけれど日本独特にアレンジされたものが一般的に食べられていると思います。

 

また健康志向で、豆腐ハンバーグ、大豆のから揚げなど擬似食材を活用したり、塩麹など伝統的調味料を現代風にアレンジし使用したり

本当に日本人は食に対して貪欲で常に変化を求めていると感じています。

 

今回は皆様が食の展示会でお客様に対して新しい食品をプレゼンテーションする場面を想定してください。

 

食品は食材、加工品、調理したものどんなジャンルでも構いません。

 

<Procedure>

1) Let’s divide 6 people into 2 teams first. Let’s call TeamA and TeamB. (5 minutes)

Each team will play the roles of sales people and customers in alternate shifts.

 

2) Get ready for the presentation to the customers. (20 minutes)

Share ideas with team members.

Make sure to include following contents.

1.The name of food

2.Details about food

Example: taste, what is made from, color, what looks like, size, etc…

3.What are sales points?

4.Price

5.Who is the target?

Example: age, gender, health condition, social condition（for busy people, rich people) etc…

 

3) TeamA as sales people makes a presentation to TeamB. (3 minutes)

*Each person has to present at least one content.

 

4) TeamB as customers gives questions and feedback to the presentation of TeamA. (5 minutes)

*Each person has to give at least one question or feedback.

 

5) TeamB as sales people makes a presentation to TeamA. (3 minutes)

 

6) TeamA as customers gives some questions and feedback to the presentation of TeamB. (5 minutes)

 

 

＜LATTER HALF＞

Agenda : Does World Heritage system work properly to conserve the heritage?

 

So far I was travelling all over the world as the “World Heritage Hunter”, however recently I came to know that there would be heavy imbalance of the number of heritage among countries. This is obvious from my destination lists of my travel records.

 

On the other hand, I also found some negative impacts due to the registration as the World Heritage, such as too many visitors, etc.

 

If main purpose of World Heritage would be conserve the important heritages, I doubt that World Heritage is the best way, for example, in Japan, we have national treasure system, which is enough to conserve.

 

I hope you could discuss what is the positive impact, and negative impact of world heritage system, along with tourism and this system itself.

 

(Questions)

 

1) Have you ever visited any World Heritage monument (or place)?, if yes please share your memory and your feelings about those places.

 

2) How do you feel after you read reference documents about World Heritage?

 

3) Please consider about Positive impacts, and negative impacts by registered as World Heritage.

 

4) Refer to the Document 3, do you know any World Heritage site which you feel strange that site is registered as World Heritage?

 

5) Do you think World Heritage registration system does work properly to conserve the Heritage? And why?

 

 

Reference Document 1

http://www.journal-iostudies.org/sites/journal-iostudies.org/files/JIOSfinal_4_0.pdf

 

Correcting the Imbalance of the World Heritage List: Did the UNESCO Strategy Work?

 

by Lasse Steiner, University of Zurich and Bruno S. Frey, University of Warwick/University of Zurich/Center for Research in Economics, Management, and the Arts―Switzerland

 

The official intention of the UNESCO World Heritage List is to protect the global heritage. However, the imbalance of the distribution of world heritage sites according to countries and continents is striking. Consequently, the World Heritage Committee launched the global strategy for a balanced, representative, and credible world heritage list in 1994. To date, there have not been any empirical analyses conducted to study the impact of this strategy. This paper shows that the imbalance did not decrease but rather increased over time, thus reflecting the inability of the Global Strategy to achieve a more balanced distribution of sites.

 

We focus on the highly unequal distribution of sites according to countries and continents. Although 46 percent of the sites are in Europe, only 9 percent are in Africa. Only ten countries have a large number of twenty sites or more, whereas, on the other hand, thirty-eight member countries of the convention have no sites at all. This imbalance of sites according to continents and countries has been present from the beginning, and it has become a subject of major concern within the World Heritage Commission, the World Heritage Centre, UNESCO, and other organizations. The director of the World Heritage Centre, Francesco Bandarin, even went so far as to call the world heritage list “a catastrophic success” (Henley, 2001).

 

As a reaction to this imbalance, in 1994, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee started the global strategy for a balanced, representative, and credible world heritage list (hereafter “global strategy”),4 which intends to raise the share of non-European sites on the list. Despite this explicit new strategy and intended strong action, “the immediate success of these efforts is questionable” (Strasser 2002, p. 226).

 

This paper analyzes the unbalanced representation of continents and countries on the world heritage list. We further address the question of whether the international organization UNESCO is effective in achieving the goal of its own formally ratified resolution. In particular, we test whether the global strategy has reached its goal of reducing the inequality in the distribution of sites.

 

In order to lay the groundwork, Section II discusses the process of selecting sites and introduces the political actors involved in the nomination process. The existing literature usually discusses the strategy for a more balanced list and the strategy’s outcome without referring to empirical evidence. This paper fills the gap by presenting statistics on the highly unequal distribution of sites across countries and continents (Section III). The Gini coefficient as a measure of the inequality in the distribution of sites across the world is increasing over time, depicting an increasing concentration of sites in a few countries. Further, we analyze the global strategy’s objectives of reducing the imbalance between cultural and natural sites as well as reducing the share of sites located in Europe and more developed countries. The results suggest that the imbalance of the list has not decreased after the introduction of the global strategy; if anything,

it has increased further (Section IV). We briefly discuss previous attempts to reform the list (Section V) and Section VI concludes.

 

Reference Document 2

Number of World Heritages country by country

 

Cultural Natural Mix

No.1  Italy     44       3

No.2  China     30       9       4

No.3  Spain     38       2       2

No.4  France    34       3       1

No.5  Germany   34       3

No.6  Mexico    26       3

No.7  India     22       6

No.8  U.K       22       4       1

No.9  Russia    15       10

No.10 U.S.A     12       8       1

No.11 Brazil    12       7

No.11 Australia 3        12      4

No.13 Greece    15               2

No.14 Japan     12       4

No.14 Canada    7        9

No.16 Iran      15

No.16 Sweden    13       1       1

No.18 Portugal  13       1

No.18 Poland    12       1

No.20 Czech     12

 

Reference Document 3

Selection criteria

 

Until the end of 2004, there were six criteria for cultural heritage and four criteria for natural heritage. In 2005, this was modified so that there is only one set of ten criteria. Nominated sites must be of “outstanding universal value” and meet at least one of the ten criteria.

 

Cultural criteria

(i) “represents a masterpiece of human creative genius”

(ii) “exhibits 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) “bears a unique or exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared”

(iv) “is an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural, or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates a significant stage in human history”

(v) “is an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture, or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change”

(vi) “is directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance”

 

Natural criteria

(vii) “contains superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance”

(viii) “is an outstanding example representing major stages of Earth’s history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features”

(ix) “is an outstanding example representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems, and communities of plants and animals”

(x) “contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation”

 

**********************************************

 

 

私たちと一緒に英語コミュニケーション能力を鍛えませんか？

 

ご興味を持たれた方は、

入会申込フォーム

 

https://english-speaking-club.com/cms/?page_id=93

 

 

よりお申し込みください。お待ちしています！

 

***********************************************************

Copyright 2011 English-Speaking-Clubin. All Rights Reserved.