Category Archives: Monumentos / Monuments

About Panamanian national historical monuments. About Panama’s national historic monuments.

The Historic District of Panama and Criterion (vi) of Outstanding Universal Value

Panamanian tribes

Posted on by
1

Dear Friends of Patrimonio Panama:

Up to this date, Panama has under inscription on UNESCO's World Heritage List, the property “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama.” Casco Antiguo is another name for the Historic District of Panama City, as it is known in Spanish language. In order to enter the World Heritage List(1), As State Party to the World Heritage Convention, Panama justified to the World Heritage Committee of Unesco, that the property holds outstanding universal value, by means of demonstrating that the property meets the necessary requirements, which include meeting at least one of the ten criteria of outstanding universal value. The property in its two components, Casco Antiguo + Panama Viejo, met criteria (ii), (iv) and (vi). The criteria nomenclature is written in lowercase Roman numerals.

Each criterion of outstanding universal value has a theoretical basis, that supports them. I would like to showcase the sixth criterion (vi) of outstanding universal value, justified for the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama. I selected criterion (vi) because today is a special day: It is Panama's Independence from Spain (and affiliation to Colombia) on the 28 of November, 1821. At that date, Simón Bolívar El Libertador wrote a few congratulating lines to General Jose de Fabrega in occasion of the independence of the Isthmus of Panama. These lines were precursory to the Amphictyonic Congress of Panama, which is the basis of the Panamanian justification for criterion (vi) to the World Heritage Committee on the inscription of the Historic District of Panama on the World Heritage List in 1997. Before examining the letter, let us see the criterion (vi) of outstanding universal value for the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama:

Current Version: Decision 37 COM 8E, Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value

Criterion (vi): The ruins of Panama Viejo are closely linked to the European discovery of the Pacific Ocean, the history of Spanish expansion in the Isthmus of Central America and in Andean South America, the African diaspora, the history of piracy and proxy war, the bullion lifeline to Europe, the spread of European culture in the region and the commerce network between the Americas and Europe. The Salón Bolívar is associated with Simón Bolívar's visionary attempt 1826 to establish a multinational congress in the Americas, preceding the Organization of American States and the United Nations. (UNOFFICIAL translation by the author)

In my paper, “The Attributes of Outstanding Universal Value of a property considered World Heritage – The case of the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama”, I made an analysis on the justification for the criteria of outstanding universal value presented by Panama that achieved the registration of the property in two stages as previously mentioned, in 1997 and 2003. I referred to each of the three criteria justified by Panama in regards to both components of the property: these are, The Historic District of Panama, and the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo, identifying their corresponding attributes, where I pointed out in the case of criterion (vi) for the Historic District of Panama:

Criterion (vi) relates directly to the geopolitical importance of the strategic position of Panama City, from its foundation and relocation to the present day. The criterion is thus justified, based on the Bolivarian idea of making Panama the venue for the Amphictyonic Congress of Panama, considering Panama to be the logical place from the standpoint of strategy and geopolitics, in the vision of a free America, in a position to discuss as equals with European powers and the new nations in the North American continent, to achieve global balance. Even, the idea and the Congress itself, are precursors of international organizations with similar goals (the United Nations, and the Organization of American States, among others). Without the geopolitical importance attributed to Panama City by Simón Bolívar El Libertador, the Amphictyonic Congress of Panama would not have taken place there. Thus, criterion (vi) is more based on the idea of a ​​congress of nations seeking a world balance, than on the ruins of Salón Bolívar itself, which is credited with being the room that hosted the Congress. The ruins are the physical attribute of the space that hosted the idea.

The attributes present in the justification of criterion (vi) are: the Salón Bolívar (at Bolívar Palace, headquarters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs); and the maritime character of the city of Panama, main part of its geopolitical importance as a strategic point for inter-oceanic communications, and terminal of international trade routes. (Osorio 2012: 14-15)

I would like to draw your attention to the Bolivarian idea of ​​making Panama the venue for the Amphictyonic Congress. In his famous Letter from Jamaica (as translated by Lewis Betrand in, Selected Writings from Bolivar. New York: The Colonial Press, 1951), Bolivar made reference to the Isthmus of Panama three times, first, referring to the Isthmus as possible capital city, after Mexico, of the New World, made into a great republic, and described the Isthmus of Panama as “… Let us assume it were to be the Isthmus of Panama, the most central point for all of this vast continent…” (Bolívar 1967: 38). In his second allusion to the Isthmus of Panama, he points out: “The states of the Isthmus of Panama as far as Guatemala, will perhaps form a confederation. Because of their magnificent position between two mighty oceans, they may in time become the emporium of the world, Their canals will shorten distances throughout the world, strengthen commercial ties between Europe, America and Asia, and bring to that happy area tribute of the four quarters of the globe. There some day, perhaps, the capital of the world may be located - reminiscent of the Emperor Constantine's claim that Byzantium was the capital of the ancient world!” (Bolívar 1967: 42-43). Noting the great difficulties in maintaining peace in the newly founded territories and the impossibility to consolidate them into a single, mighty republic, he makes reference to Panama for the third time, saying: “How beautiful it would be if the Isthmus of Panama could be for us what the Isthmus of Corinth was for the Greeks! Would to God that someday we may have the good fortune to convene there an august assembly of representatives of republics, kingdoms and empires to deliberate upon the high interests of peace and war, with the nations of the other three quarters of the globe.” (Bolívar 1967: 47).

The thoughts on Bolivar's mind concerning the Isthmus of Panama, embodied in his Letter from Jamaica 1815 addressed to an English gentleman in Kingston, Jamaica, was focused on the geopolitical importance of the geographic position of the Isthmus of Panama. He enthusiastically described the Isthmus of Panama, as a central point for all the Americas; assures that the Isthmus of Panama would become the emporium of the world thanks to its privileged interoceanic communications, including future canals; and that the Isthmus of Panama would strengthen commercial ties between Europe, the Americas and Asia; and he even goes as far as to give it the capital of the globe; Bolívar then reinforces the thought by equating the Isthmus of Panama to the Isthmus of Corinth and saying that Panama would be venue for a future world congress of republics, kingdoms and empires.

Perusing over documents on the internet related to present date November 28th, I found a transcription of the letter El Libertador Simón Bolívar addressed to General José de Fábrega on February 1st 1822, on the occasion of the independence of Panama from Spain. The letter to General Fábrega, back then still a colonel, was written seven years after the Letter of Jamaica; seven years during which the idea of ​​a congress of nations remained brewing on El Libertador's mind..

I took the liberty to transcribe (and translate) the letter, as follows. I used bold letters to enhance some of the text, to highlight those terms that showcase the special interest Bolívar had on the case of Panama.

Headquarters at Popayán, 1February 1st, 1822 - 12º

TO MISTER COLONEL JOSÉ DE FÁBREGA,
GOVERNOR COMMANDER GENERAL
OF THE PROVINCE OF PANAMA.

Mister Colonel:

Yet without having had the satisfaction of receiving the dispatch that. you. have been kind enough to address to me, I hasten to congratulate the distinguished province that. you. have the glory of presiding over. I cannot fully express the feelings of joy and wonder I have experienced upon learning that Panamá, the center of the universe, is regenerated by her own volition, and free by her own virtue. The Act of Independence of Panama, is the most glorious monument that any American province may offer to History. Everything is consulted there, in regards to justice, generosity, politics and general interest.

Do convey on my behalf. you. to those meritorious Colombians, the tribute of my enthusiasm for their pure patriotism and true generosity. Without delay, a part of the army of Colombia, under the command of Colonel Carreño, must have secured already the fate of that precious emporium of commerce and exchange of the world. I have also ordered a second army corps of a 1.000 more men, enter to replace those same troops I now request from their commander to come and join us to cooperate to the freedom of Quito. Thus you. Colonel Fábrega. shall make every effort to ensure that these orders are carried out to their full effect. I trust completely that you. you. shall give all the assistance within your power to ensure that these troops may depart immediately with all the elements necessary for their transport and operations, due to embark for the coast of Esmeraldas and Guayaquil under the command of whomever leader gets appointed to them by Colonel Carreño: and embarking on the transports and warships that may be procured eventfully at the Isthmus ports or on the warships that may be expressly sent for that purpose from Guayaquil. Thus you. Mister, Colonel, are hereby appointed by me as governor commander general of the province of Panama, and Mister Colonel Carreño and should remain in command in that military department, as head, of politics and military, in charge of operations against Veraguas, or any other point occupied by the Spanish armies on the borders of Colombia. Mister Colonel Carreño shall receive from the department of Magdalena and the capital of Bogotá as much support as needed for the defense od the work you have so. you. initiated. I reiterate to you. you. expression of sincere gratitude, with which I accepted on behalf of Colombia the services that you. you. and that generous people have done to thus complete, the scope that Providence and Nature had designed to our mighty republic. May God keep you. you. long and many years.

BOLÍVAR.

To Bolivar, Panama was the center of the universe; probably, a geopolitical universe built upon vast communication networks. Four years later, he held in Panama City his long-awaited congress…. but, in what conditions was Panama City when it hosted the Amphictyonic Congress of Panama 1826?

A quick look at two cartographic references may show us Panama City at the time of the of Amphictyonic Congress of Panama 1826: Map of Panama in 1814, and the map of Panama in 1850. Both maps show the city in ruins, with more than 30% of its occupation area marked as uncultivated land, in ruins, or covered with bushes 1850, in better off conditions than in 1814.

20131129-012839.jpg
Figure 1. Plan of the Plaza de Panama, chorographic Map of the New Kingdom of Granada, by Vicente Talledo y Rivera, 1814 (Tejeira 2009: 40)

20131129-012959.jpg
Figure 2. Map of Panama in 1859, by H. Tiedemann (Spadafora 2001: 37).

Concluding remarks

Panama City was far from being an affluent city in 1826, the city was under a slow economic period and had a less than attractive appearance. Nonetheless, Simón Bolívar El Libertador was convinced about the geopolitical importance of the geographic position of the Isthmus of Panama, as shown in his Letter from Jamaica 1815, and his letter to General José de Fábrega in 1822. Bolívar summoned kingdoms, republics and empires to the Amphictyonic Congress of Panama in 1826. Regardless of its outcome, the Amphictyonic Congress of Panama in 1826 was a milestone in world history and it is precursor of current leagues of nations such as the United Nations, and the Organization of American States. This would not have come to happen if El Libertador had not been fully convinced of the importance of Panama as a communications hub, with great potential for locating a canal, and to become a commercial emporium accessible throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. The sea was a vital element for the realization of this dream, and Panama with its important port connections, would fulfill an extraordinary role for the joint progress, “to our mighty republic” (Bolívar 2013). The room where the Amphictyonic Congress presumably took place, identified as the refectory of the convent of San Francisco, was restored in the early 2000. This is the space that housed the idea; the room's existence with all its ideological associations and interpretation of its wider setting give justification to the criterion (vi) of outstanding universal value, in accordance to the integrity of its attributes.

As I noted in a previous work, “To maintain the validity of Criterion (vi) the preservation of the elements that outline the strategic position of Panama City should be taken into account: its marine environment, access and communication with the sea (being a maritime city since 1519 and kept in its second phase from 1673), and its access and communication by land” (Osorio 2012: 22). This is, because of the geopolitical importance of the geographic position of the Old Town of Panama which cannot be understood without the sea that gives access to its port and environs., surrounding the peninsula where the Historic District was built.

As a final consideration, quote the Article 10 of Law Nº. 16 of 22 of May 2007:

"The institutions of the State shall ensure that the Historic Monuments Groups of Panamá Viejo and Casco Antiguo of the City of Panamá shall maintain their historic relationship, their visual contact and immediate access to the Pacific Ocean, and, accordingly, shall preserve their marine environment, which is part of the integral value of both Groups".

Regards,

Katti Osorio

o——o——o——o
References

Bolívar, Simón (2013) Letter addressed to Mr. Coronel José De Fabrega Gobernardor Commanding General of the Province of Panama, Headquarters at Popayán, 1° of February 1822. University of Los Andes, Venezuela.

Bolívar, Simón (1967) Letter from Jamaica. Publishing House of Culture. Miranda State Government, Venezuela.

Osorio, Katti (2012) The Attributes of Outstanding Universal Value of a property considered World Heritage – The case of the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama. Canto Rodado, 7 (7). pp. 1-27. ISSN 1818-2917 [Article]

Tejeira Davis, Eduardo (2009) In Panama 1814: city plans of Vicente Talledo y Rivera. Canto Rodado, 4 (4). pp. 37-74. ISSN 1818-2917 [Article]

Spadafora, Vanessa; Tejeira Davis, Eduardo (2001) El Casco Antiguo de Panama. 2 vols. City-City, Bilbao.

Notes:

(1) The property, “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama” was inscribed as such on the World Heritage List in two stages. In 1997, the World Heritage Committee inscribed the equivalent part of the Historic Old Town Set Monumental City Panama delimited by Law No. 91 of 22 December 1976, under the name “Historic District of Panama with the Salon Bolivar” (Casco Antiguo de Panamá con el Salón Bolívar). Later on, without changing the boundaries of the Historic District of Panama, which continued to correspond to those declared by Law 91 of 22 December 1976, the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo was inscribed as an extension of the Historic District, according to their boundary delineated by the same Law, and the name of the property was changed to its current name. Thus was settled the World Heritage property, “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama.”

State of Conservation Information System Update

Posted on by
Reply
Cinta Costera 3 from the promenade General. Esteban Huertas

Cinta Costera 3 from the promenade General. Esteban Huertas

This Week, the World Heritage Centre has updated once again data regarding the Panamanian property inscribed on the World Heritage List, “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama”, in order to include under the property's entry all decisions made by the World Heritage Committee about the delicate situation of said property, with emphasis on the Historic District (Casco Antiguo) of Panama City.

They are two Decisions:

1. Decision 37COM 7B.100
Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama (Panama) (C 790bis)

This decision, previously discussed in another article in this blog (click here to read the article), refers primarily to the impact the maritime viaduct Cinta Costera 3 has exerted on the value to the world as cultural heritage of the Historic District of Panama (outstanding universal value). This Decision gives a deadline to Panama until Panamanian post-election year (specifically, until 1 February 2015) for submit to consideration by the World Heritage Committee a significant modification to the boundaries of the property “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama” that would allowit to justify a revision of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property; without forgetting that the Cinta Costera 3 modified in an irreversible manner the relationship of the historic center with its wider setting (See points 5 and 6 of Decision 37 COM 7B.100). Although the property includes Panama Viejo and the Historic District (Casco Antiguo), is the latter that receives the emphasis of this Decision.

Link to the updated entry (in English) on the website of the World Heritage Centre, http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5019.

Decision 37 COM 7B.100 is listed in the Information System of State of Conservation (SOC) under the following themes: Credibility of the World Heritage List, inscriptions on the World Heritage List, and Outstanding Universal Value.

The wider setting to which the decision refers includes the sea and the network of relationships between the sea, the port city of Panama, and its terrestrial connections, which are described in the following decision.

2. 37COM 8E

Adoption of Retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value

The Decision 37 COM 8E adopts the Retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, including on its list the “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama”. The text adopted by this Decision is on the website of the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO, under this link, under the title, OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/790 /

Allow me to provide you with an unofficial translation, here: Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value to the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama (UNOFFICIAL translation). It describes that the city was founded following the discovery of the Southern Sea; that the city was a first class imperial outpost; which was relocated after the fire of 1671, that the city was built on a peninsula; that said peninsula was chosen because it could be fortified in order to prevent enemy access by sea; that the city grew in importance by means of the imperial bullion route; that the city was a strategic location within the geopolitical dynamics in the heyday of Spanish imperial power; including its geopolitical importance recognized by Simon Bolivar, and other revealing aspects of the vital and unavoidable relationship of Panama City with the sea.

The deepwater port of Panama was located at Perico Island (one of the three islands at the entrance of the Panama Canal, where the Americans built a causeway that connects them to the mainland in order to protect the Panama Canal entrance), and its interaction with the port city was via boats and ships smaller in size; the Royal Court and the Royal Houses (they were located where now stands the Presidency of the Republic) were within the walls of Panama.

A revealing preamble to Decision 37 COM 7B.100 may be seen in the State of Conservation report prepared by the World Heritage Centre for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its Session 37 COM of year 2013 (Click here, for the text in English; Click here, for the text in Spanish) . In the fourth paragraph under “Conclusions”, the report reads as follows:

“The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies underscore the negative visual impacts of the Maritime Viaduct that will adversely impact on and transform the setting of the Historic Centre. They further note that , the Maritime Viaduct is a structure of a very strong shape (.) with a high visual impact which does not integrate harmoniously with the Historic District and establishes an undesirable contrast with regard to its maritime context. They consider that the ability of the property to convey its Outstanding Universal Value, as a fortified settlement in a Peninsula and as a testimony to the nature of the early settlements, with a layout and urban design adapted to a particular context, are being adversely compromised. The urban layout and scale and the relationship between the city and its setting, attributes crucial to the understanding of the evolution of the property, will also be adversely impacted.”

I provide below a picture showing the property before and after the construction of Cinta Costera maritime viaduct 3, featuring Google Earth's satellite photographs.

 

Cinta Costera Phase 3 Maritime Viaduct

Cinta Costera Phase 3 Maritime Viaduct

Note:

Thanks to the transparency policies of UNESCO and its World Heritage Centre, all documents cited in this article of the Blog, Patrimonio Panamá are public information of open access for all around the world from UNESCO websites, and by means of the State of Conservation Information System (SOC), open to the public from 2012 (Click here to see related news: http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/962/).

Decision 37 COM 7B.100, World Heritage Committee of UNESCO Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama, in 2013

Posted on by
3

The 37th Session of the UNESCO World Heritage (37 COM) ended the day 27 June 2013. Today, World Heritage Centre issued the document WHC-13/37.COM/20 dated 5 July 2013, containing all the decisions adopted by the Committee in Session 37 COM.

The decision concerning the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama is located on page 146 Document WHC-13/37.COM/20, in English. The document is also available in French, and both are original versions.

Then, a translation UNOFFICIAL Text of Decision 37 COM 7B.100:

100. Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama (Panamá) (C 790bis)

Decision: 37 COM 7B.100
The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC-37/37.COM/7B.Add,
  2. Recalling Decisions 33 COM 7B.141, 34 COM 7B.113, 35 COM 7B.130, 36 COM 7B.103, adopted at its 33rd (Seville, 2009), 34th (Brasilia, 2010), 35th (UNESCO, 2011) and 36th (Saint Petersburg, 2012) sessions, respectively, and its concern that the construction of the Cinta Costera Phase 3 (Maritime Viaduct) would irreversibly impact on the property,
  3. Also recalling the state of conservation reports and reactive monitoring mission reports of March 2009, March 2010 and October 2010 that underscored the impacts of the Cinta Costera project, in particular the Maritime Viaduct, and the poor state of conservation of the property;
  4. Notes the progress with developing a Management Plan, with quantifying the number of buildings at risk and with work on streetscapes, and undergrounding networks, and reiterates its deep concern about the overall state of conservation of the property, and regrets that no sufficient progress has been made in comprehensively and sustainably addressing issues, or in implementing the emergency Action Plan agreed in 2009;
  5. Also regrets that the State party decided to launch the construction of the Cinta Costera Phase 3 (Maritime Viaduct) that modifies in an irreversible manner the relation of the historic centre with its wider setting;
  6. Requests the State Party to submit by 1 February 2015 a significant modification to the boundaries to allow it to justify a revision of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;
  7. Also requests the State Party to invite as soon as possible a high-level World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission, guided by the World Heritage Centre, to discuss the different possibilities of this modification;

  8. Considers that in the absence of the implementation of the request made in this decision, the property would be deleted from the World Heritage List at its 39th session 2015, in conformity with Chapter IV.C of the Operational Guidelines.

-End UNOFFICIAL translation of Decision 37 COM 7B.100. The underlined and bold text correspond to underlined text and bold text in the original version in English, which is available at, http://whc.unesco.org/document/123631 page 146 and page 147.

The procedure for a “significant modification to the boundaries” is decribed in the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention; namely, on the “handbook” of the World Heritage Convention. This procedure involves submitting the proposal (for boundary modification) as if it were a new nomination to get inscribed on the World Heritage List, gathering all the necessary conditions. As shown in the Decision, no deterioration was noted at the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo to warrant its reduction, but (it was noted) in the Historic District (Casco Antiguo).

Let us take into account that the boundaries of the property comprise the boundaries of the Historic District of Panama (delineated by Law 91 of 1976, from the sea to the 12th Street 12 West, mainly) and the boundaries of the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo (delineation by Law 16 of 2007). The boundaries of both components, Panama Viejo and Casco Antiguo together, constitute a single property.

To get inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger, it is required that the property at risk is already inscribed on the World Heritage List, and that the characteristics which determined its inscription on the World Heritage List have not deteriorated to the extent that they have been lost. (Operational Guidelines, Section IV.C).

The statement in paragraph 5 of Decision 37 COM 7B.100, “Cinta Costera Phase 3 (Maritime Viaduct) that modifies in an irreversible manner the relation of the historic centre with its wider setting” it is of great concern that it contains the word “irreversible”, that highlights the strength of the contents of the Decision, while paragraph 8 underscores that, if the requirements set out in the decision are not fulfilled,, the property shall be deleted from the World Heritage List, without the option of getting inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

For more information, see entries:

____

Note:

Thanks to the transparency policies of UNESCO and its World Heritage Centre, all documents cited in this article of the Blog, Patrimonio Panamá are public information of open access for all around the world from UNESCO websites, and by means of the Information System of the State of Conservation (SOC), open to the public from 2012 (Click here to see related news: http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/962/).

Portobelo and San Lorenzo, and the List of World Heritage in Danger

Posted on by
1

Thanks to the transparency policies of UNESCO and its World Heritage Centre, All documents listed below are public information of open access for all around the world from UNESCO Web sites specifically, by Information System of the State of Conservation (SOC) open to the public from 2012 (Click here to see related news: http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/962/).

Live broadcast: during the Committee Meeting Monday 17, of 9:00 pm to Martes 18, 6:00 am hour de Panamá, in http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/37COM/

Any text in italics is an UNOFFICIAL translation of the document cited by the text in italics.

The purpose of this blog post is Heritage Panama depth analysis, but easily bring you, What needs to meet Panama in terms of the fortifications of Portobelo and San Lorenzo for the risks that threaten their outstanding universal value are eliminated.

Antecedent: 2012

The World Heritage property, “Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo” is located on the north coast of Panama, in the province of Colón. It was inscribed on the World Heritage List 1980. It was inscribed on the World Heritage List in Danger 2012.

According to analysis by the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS, hazards on the outstanding universal value of the “Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo” are, the fragile state of the property and its rapid deterioration by environmental factors, limited lack of maintenance and conservation planning; erosion; absence of limits and lack of buffer zone; absence of a conservation and management plan; pressure invasions and urban; tourist pressure (particularly in Portobelo); and inadequate legislation for the preservation of the built heritage and regulations that combine the two components of the property (Item WHC-13/37.COM/7A, page 91). If these risks are corrected, Portobelo and San Lorenzo will come from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Simple! But not easy.

The inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger was decided by the World Heritage Committee by Decision 36 COM 7B.102 and implemented by Decision 36 COM 8C.1, which established the World Heritage List in Danger 2012.

The Decision 36 COM 7B.102 (click the link to view, for the text in English) states at paragraph No.6:

“6. Considers that the State Party has not complied with all the requests expressed by previous World Heritage Committee Decisions, and that therefore the property is in danger in conformity with Chapter IV.B of the Operational Guidelines and decides to inscribe the Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Panama) on the List of World Heritage in Danger;” (Decision 36 COM 7B.102)

Then, the Decision 36 COM 7B.102 indicates the desired state of conservation for the property in paragraph No.7; namely, which must be fulfilled in order to remove the “Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo” List of World Heritage in Danger:

“7. Adopts the following Desired state of conservation for the property, for its future removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger:

to) The approval and full implementation of an emergency plan, a comprehensive assessment of structural and mechanical risks, preventative conservation strategy and maintenance measures at San Lorenzo and Portobelo,

b) National laws and policies for the conservation of built heritage at San Lorenzo and Portobelo defined and in place,

c) Long-term consolidation and conservation through annual plans for the components of the inscribed property ensured,

d) The operational and participatory management system, including its related public use plan, approved and implemented,

and) The Management Plan fully integrated within territorial and urban development plans,

f) Encroachments and urban pressure adequately controlled,

g) The boundaries and buffer zone of all component parts of the World Heritage property precisely clarified,

h) Budgets for the preparation, implementation and follow-up of the management structures and conservation measures secured.” Decision 36 COM 7B.102

Panama has a calendar, also described in Decision 36 COM 7B.102 which strictly fulfilled the tasks within the time stipulated, culminate in September 2014. So we know in advance that the “Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo” This year would not leave the Danger List, although Panama had fulfilled the task calendar for 2013.

This year, Cambodia

This year, in Session 37 COM that is llevándose out this week in Cambodia, discussed the document Item WHC-13/37.COM/7A, where “Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo” take from the page 91 to 94. This document includes the background of the analysis by the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS, and Draft Decision 37 COM 7A.36 (*).

In its Conclusion, analysis by the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS reads:

“The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies take note of the efforts made for setting up a coordinated national management system for World Heritage. However, they note the limited progress made by the State Party in the implementation of the Desired state of conservation and of the corrective measures of this property. They recommend that the World Heritage Committee express its concern that a comprehensive Emergency Plan has not yet been developed to identify a clear course of action to address the poor state of conservation of the property.

In addition, they note that no clear information was included on the decision-making process for the properties, nor on the role of the Technical Office in Portobelo in preparing the Emergency Plan. The institutional, legal and financial instruments to address the conservation and management of the property need to be clarified and put into force as a matter of urgency.”

(In UNOFFICIAL form, in Spanish would read: The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note the efforts made to create a coordinated national management system for World Heritage. However, note the limited progress made by the State party in implementing the desired state of conservation and remedial measures for this property. They recommend that the World Heritage Committee expressed its concern that a comprehensive emergency plan has not been developed to identify a clear course of action to address the poor state of conservation of the property.

Also, point was not included clear information about the decision-making process for real, and on the role of the Technical Office of Portobelo in the preparation of the Emergency Plan. It is necessary to clarify and enforce urgent institutional instruments, legal and financial resources to address the conservation and management of the property.)

Draft Decision 37 COM 7A.36 dice así:

“Draft Decision: 37 COM 7A.36

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7A,

2. Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.102, adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012),

3. Takes note of the information provided by the State Party on the conditions at the property and the actions implemented and regrets that the report did not specifically relate information to the adopted corrective measures;

4. Expresses its serious concern for the limited progress that has been achieved in the execution of the corrective measures and urges the State Party to implement them within the approved timeframe, with particular attention to:

to) Formulation of a budgeted Emergency Plan that includes the identification of priority interventions for stabilization, conservation and protection with timeframes and priority interventions for implementation,

b) Ensuring that operational conservation arrangements are in place and that budgets have been secured for the implementation of the Emergency Plan,

c) Identification of measures to address encroachments and urban pressure;

5. Requests the State Party to submit comprehensive technical and graphic information on the planned construction of a retaining wall at the Santiago de la Gloria fort in Portobelo by 30 October 2013, and to halt the interventions until the evaluation of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies is submitted to the State Party;

6. Also requests the State Party to submit clear information on the role of the Patronato de Portobelo for the conservation of the property within the framework of a collective Management Plan for this property and the Archaeological Site of Panamá Viejo and Historic District of Panamá;

7. Further requests the State Party to invite an advisory mission to support the State Party in providing guidelines to finalize the diagnosis and to prepare a comprehensive conservation Emergency Plan as soon as possible,

8. Requests moreover the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2014, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session in 2014;

9. Decides to retain Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Panama) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.” (Item WHC-13/37.COM/7A, on the pages 93 and 94).

Especially noteworthy Point No.3 of the draft decision, where the Committee notes the information provided by the State party (Panamá) on property condition and actions implemented – while Panama regrets that the report does not specifically related to any corrective action information (brought to Panama in the decision last year) threats to the outstanding universal value that led to the inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger, first; and Point No. 6 which asks Panama to clarify the role of the Board of Portobelo for conservation of the property (Portobelo and San Lorenzo) within what appears to be a new framework Panamanian has not been disseminated in Panama: Collective Management Plan, to administer the land to Portobelo and San Lorenzo, but also the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Casco Antiguo (Historic District of Panama). What would be the role of boards in this budding management framework? Do you repeat the recent management model of the Old Town of Panama in the other historical monuments?

Draft Decision 37 COM 7A.36 specifically, will be discussed by the World Heritage Committee on Monday morning 17, of 9:00 pm to Martes 18, 6:00 am hour de Panamá, broadcast live on http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/37COM/.

Update, 18 June 2013:

The “Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo” were not discussed last night (17 June from the 9:00 p,. When Panama) by the World Heritage Committee, because it is not on the official list for discussion (document http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2013/whc13-37com-7infrev-en.pdf). This means that (If no change request by a member of the Committee or the State Party), Draft Decision is adopted without changes to the end of the Session 37 COM.

—————–

(*) The State of Conservation or SOC, for “Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo”, is broken and publicly available http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/1854. Includes a tab at the bottom where the Draft Decision 37 COM 7A.36.