Session 42 COM UNESCO Committee of World Heritage in Manama, Bahrain, 2018

Panamanian tribes

Posted on June 25, 2018 by Katti Osorio

Auditorium in Session 42 How the World Heritage Committee 2018 in Manama, Bahrain.

Dear Friends of Patrimonio Panamá:

Us accompany Session of the World Heritage Committee 2018!

The World Heritage Committee meets this year in the city of Manama, Bahrain, and Salón 24 de junio al 4 July. Chaired the session 42 COM Ms. Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa. The inauguration was attended by the Director General of UNESCO, Audrey Azoulay, and the Director General for Culture, Ernesto Ottone-Ramirez. Its activities, the Committee will consider the State of Conservation (SOC, for its acronym in English) of 157 sites.

The Committee will decide on add or delete sites from the List of World Heritage in Danger (Red list), and decide on the inclusion or rejection of new sites to the prestigious World Heritage List.

NOTE: While the World Heritage Committee requested updated status reports Panama conservation “Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection” and “Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo”, Reports conservation status of these properties are not on the list to be discussed by the plenary, but they would be classified to be approved without debate. This may change during session 42 COM, 2018.

This is the official site of the Session 42 Com World Heritage Committee by the government of the Kingdom of Bahrain: http://42whcbahrain2018.bh, where you can see details of the location of the event and related events, as the Forum of Young Professionals World Heritage, or Managers Forum World Heritage Sites.

We can follow live debates of the annual session of the World Heritage Committee in Manama, Bahrain button link:

[button link=”http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/42com/” color=”teal” newwindow=”yes”]Session of the World Heritage Committee in Manama, Bahrain, 2018[/button]

The languages available in simultaneous translation during transmission are English, French, and Arabic. “Floor” It refers to the transmission without translation, where any language will be heard on the speakers are directed to the room.

Time Bahrain: AST (Arabia Standard Time) UTC/GMT +3 hours. Son 8 hours more than when Panama.

Calendar: Click here provisional timetable for (pdf).

Panama in Session 42 COM World Heritage Committee

In Session 42 COM two of the five properties will be addressed Panamanian registered in the World Heritage List: “Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection”; and the “Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo”.

Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection:

It was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in 2005. It is a place of great natural beauty. On the World Heritage List we can read about their outstanding universal value this summary:

“Coiba National Park, located off the southwest coast of Panama, in the Gulf of Chiriqui, protects Coiba Island and other 38 islands and smaller islands, as well as the surrounding marine areas. Protected against cold winds and El Niño, the tropical rainforest of Coiba is a place of formation of new species, as evidenced by the high level of endemism of many of its mammals, birds and plants. Last refuge for several endangered species such as the harpy eagle, This site is an outstanding natural laboratory for scientific research and a key ecological link to the Tropical Eastern Pacific for the transit and survival of pelagic fish and marine mammals.” (Source: UNESCO)

In 2017, the World Heritage Committee through its Decision 41 COM 7B.17 welcomed the progress made by the State party in the removal of wild cattle from Coiba Island and the introduction of amendments to ensure legislation prohibiting continue in force development (Apart from low-impact infrastructure for ecotourism and scientific research). Similarly, the Committee noted that it is expected that the information that measures to operationalize the Fund Coiba be completed by mid 2017 and he urged the Panamanian government to meet this deadline.

In the same decision, the Committee requested the Government of Panama to submit a State of Conservation Report on Coiba submitted to the World Heritage Center until 1 February 2018 to solve and apply the following points:

End before 1 February 2018 the development of a Public Use Plan (PUP) for Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection and submit it to the World Heritage Center for review by IUCN, as part of the updated report on the state of conservation of the property; This PUP clearly improve the visitor experience to the island without expanding the space occupied by the existing infrastructure, establish and develop a biosecurity plan.
Implement as a matter of priority the implementation of the Committee's requests relating to the management and control of fisheries, to reason he has watched with growing concern the conclusions of the reactive monitoring mission of IUCN 2016, that although the land component of the property appears to be well preserved and gradually decline previously identified threats, managing their marine component continues to face significant challenges, with decreases reported for some key marine values, and with little progress reported.
Report on the full implementation of all recommendations of the IUCN mission 2014 and 2016;
Review the draft regulations for the Special Zone of Marine Protection (SZMP) to ensure that such activities as industrial fishing is not permitted within the property, and to submit the draft revised rules for SZMP to the World Heritage Center for review by IUCN. This a reason to observe with great concern that the draft in question includes provisions for types of activities that would be incompatible with World Heritage status of the property, particularly the aforementioned industrial fishing;

Without these requests, In the absence of substantial progress in protecting the property of unsustainable fisheries, the World Heritage Committee consider the possible inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Conservation Status (SOC) Coiba and Draft Decision 42 COM 7B.87 can be here. The SOC can be seen together with the Draft Decision on the page 179-182 and Salón PDF Document, here.

In this analysis and Draft Decision 42 COM 7B.87 that follows, fulfilling the required conditions just review verified.

This is neat Draft Decision, and therefore we reproduce here with a translation UNOFFICIAL:

Draft Decision 42 COM 7B.87

The World Heritage Committee,

Having examined WHC / 18 / 42.COM / 7B,

Recalling la Decisión 41 COM 7B.17, adopted at its 41st Session (Cracovia, 2017),

Welcomes the continued progress made by the State party in the removal of wild cattle from Coiba Island, and solicita the State party establish a monitoring program to confirm the successful long-term elimination of wild cattle on the island;
Notes with grave concern the Public Use Plan (PUP) It provides for the expansion of existing infrastructure and the possible negative impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value (VIEW) property have not been adequately taken into account in developing the plan and, Thus, urges the State party to :
to) PUP suspend implementation until complete and submit an assessment of the possible negative impacts of its provisions on property VUE, based on rigorous scientific data, before 1 December 2019 the World Heritage Center for review by IUCN,
b) Ensure that they develop a Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for airport infrastructure project, in line with the advice note World Heritage IUCN Environmental Assessments, and filed before 1 December 2019 the World Heritage Center for review by IUCN Center before starting work on the project,
c) Establish a comprehensive program to monitor the impacts of tourism on the property to inform the development of any future plan and program related to tourism;

Also notes of fisheries regulations revised for the Special Zone of Marine Protection (SZMP) of the property, but also notes with grave concern it is unclear how these regulations would ensure long-term preservation VUE property, and also urges the State party to:
to) Further review regulations for SZMP in line with previous requests from the Committee to establish unequivocal no take zones and seasonal closures of critical areas, to ensure that they are aligned with existing regulations for Coiba National Park and ensure the preservation of the property VUE,
b) Ensure the provision of adequate resources for the effective implementation of fishing regulations throughout the property,
c) Establish a monitoring system to assess progress with the establishment and enforcement of regulations within the marine component of the property, as recommended by reactive monitoring missions 2014 and 2016;

Recuerda the conclusion of the mission 2016 that if the problems relating to fisheries management within the property can not be resolved by the end of 2018 so that the long-term preservation of VUE in marine portion of the property is guaranteed, consideration should be given to the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger during 43 Sign in 2019;

also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Center, before 1 February 2019, an update on the state of conservation of the property report and the implementation of the above, for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its 43rd session 2019, with a view to considering, In the absence of substantial progress in protecting the property of unsustainable fisheries, the possible inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo:

It was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in 1980. It is a bay surrounded by fortifications of the Spanish colonial period, that once they protected the transport across the Isthmus of Panama of great wealth. On the World Heritage List we can read about their outstanding universal value this summary:

“These strong Panamanians are great prototypes of military architecture of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and to provide protection to transatlantic trade. Splendid examples of military architecture of the XVII and XVIII, these forts on the Caribbean coast of Panama were part of the defensive system created by the Crown of Spain to protect transatlantic trade.” (Source: UNESCO)

In 2017, the World Heritage Committee through its Decision 41 COM 7B.17 He retained on the List of World Heritage in Danger to this world heritage site for its fragile condition. The Committee welcomed news of the commitment of the institutions responsible for the conservation and management of the property and its efforts to strengthen cooperation and interagency coordination, and he expressed concern about the lack of regular government funding. He said that this lack of funding jeopardizes the implementation of the Emergency Plan and the planned corrective measures 2016-2019, what, as a consequence, It can seriously affect the outstanding universal value (VIEW) of the property and its attributes that justify its existence, including conditions of authenticity and integrity. Based on the above, the Committee requested the Government of Panama to submit a State of Conservation Report on the fortifications of Portobelo and San Lorenzo to resolve the following points:

Continuously ensure the government budget funds necessary for the full implementation of the strategy, the work plan and schedule 2016-2019 in order to achieve the desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) in the year 2019;
Prepare a status report updated Conservation and deliver it to the World Heritage Center, before 1 February 2018, detailing the conditions of Portobelo and San Lorenzo and solcitudes implementation of the World Heritage Committee, for consideration by it at its 42nd session 2018.

Panama through its responsible institution the National Institute of Culture, and the Patronato of Portobelo and San Lorenzo sent the requested report, which it is freely available on the website of UNESCO, here: Report SOC of Panama Fortifications on the Caribbean Coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo (PDF public).

ICOMOS, advisory body to the World Heritage Committee, He analyzed the documents provided by Panama and other sources. Conservation Status (SOC) produced by ICOMOS on the fortifications of Portobelo and San Lorenzo and Draft Decision 42 COM 7A.10 can be here. This SOC can be prepared with the decision of the Committee for discussion on page Draft 29-32 and Salón working paper in English, PDF format, here.

In the working documents 2018 and in the Draft Decision 42 COM 7A.10 prepared for the Committee, It emphasizes the importance of meeting the timetable set for Remedial strengths in Portobelo and San Lorenzo for the period 2016-2019; This pressure is mainly due to physical deterioration of the strengths, and environmental pressures and their environment. ICOMOS recommends as an advisory body to the Committee welcome the opportunity for the National Institute of Culture to receive funds through a loan from the Inter-American Development Bank amounting to 45,000,000.00 USD, While noting that the loan does not cover all activities of Corrective Measures. Also note that the same loan allocates funds to the development of major infrastructure projects and tourism facilities, pressure and stresses that tourism is one of the factors affecting this heritage.

It is precisely because of the situation of fragility and risk of loss of integrity and thereby authenticity of this world heritage has become inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Why ICOMOS analysis indicates that time is running out to meet the timetable of corrective measures (designed to achieve the output of the Danger List or Red List); and although positively ponders the opportunity of funds from the Inter-American Development Bank (BID), also it notes that these do not cover all the requirements of that calendar. En la Draft Decision 42 COM 7A.10 It expressed appreciation for the opportunity to obtain funds from the IDB for “Fortifications on the Caribbean Coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo”, It emphasizes the urgent need to give greater priority to compliance with the corrective actions for infrastructure and tourism facilities, and is retained property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Again the updated annual report Conservation Status requested in this Decision Draft, it would be delivered to the World Heritage Center until 1 February 2019.

Then, An unofficial translation of the Draft Decision 42 COM 7A.10.

Draft Decision: 42 COM 7A.10

The World Heritage Committee,

Having examined WHC / 18 / 42.COM / 7A,

Recalling la Decisión 41 COM 7A.25, adopted at its 41st Session (Cracovia, 2017),

Lamenta the implementation of the corrective measures has been delayed due to lack of proper allocation of funds, as a result of which the property is at risk of losing important attributes and its outstanding universal value (VIEW);

Welcomes the funding opportunity offered by the Inter-American Development Bank for the conservation and management of cultural heritage which includes a main component for interventions on World Heritage properties;

Notes that the revised schedule proposed by the State party for the implementation of corrective action program confirms the end of June 2019, and urges it to ensure that this program is fully implemented, and that due attention to the definition and protection of buffer zones and preparing a comprehensive management plan lends, which should prioritize conservation programs and a plan for sustainable public use;

Asks the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Center, before 1 February 2019, the management plan finalized for consideration by the advisory bodies and an update on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the previous report, for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its 43rd session 2019;

Decide Fortifications retain the Caribbean Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Panamá) en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en Peligro.

Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama:

Panama's government must provide documentation on the property “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama” in December 2018 at the headquarters of the World Heritage Center (París, Francia). The information requested by the Committee through its Decision No.41 COM 7B.63, for evaluation by the Advisory Bodies, It consists designs restoration project Hotel Casco Viejo the old Club Union, With studies on vehicular access, waste management and other relevant aspects. The aim is to assess the impacts of the project on the World Heritage with advice from the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) in Session 43 HOW World Heritage Committee 2019.

NOTE: The “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama” still under the effects of Decision 37COM 7B.100, reacting to project completion Cinta Costera road infrastructure Phase III, specifically its marine viaduct, surrounding the peninsula of the Old Town of Panama creating a barrier between the Old Town of Panama (Casco Antiguo) and its immediate surroundings. The Decision 37COM 7B.100 indicates that the Cinta Costera Phase III (Maritime Viaduct) “irreversibly modifies the relationship of the historic center with its wider environment”. With that, the site can not access the List of World Heritage in Danger, one of whose registration requirements is that the impact on the universal value of World Heritage is reversible. For this reason, It is an option to modify this World Heritage Site with a change of important limits, whose extension allows re-evaluate the definition on it its outstanding universal value as mitigation of marine viaduct. For this purpose has submitted a new nomination to the World Heritage List 2019 for evaluation in Session 43 COM World Heritage Committee. It will not be discussed in the session that concerns us.

Reserves of the Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves / La Amistad National Park:

It was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in 1983 and expanded in 1990. It is a natural heritage shared by two countries: Costa Rica and Panama. On the World Heritage List we can read about their outstanding universal value this summary:

“The geographical location of this unique site in Central America, which retains traces of the glaciations of the Age Cuaternaria- has facilitated contact between the flora and fauna of North America and South America. Most of the surface of this region, inhabited by four different tribes, It is covered by tropical rainforests. Conservation of the site is the subject of close cooperation between Costa Rica and Panama.”

As far as we know, no request for documentation regarding the “Reserves of the Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves / La Amistad National Park” for Session 42 COM 2018.

Yes information for analysis requested by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to be delivered to February 1 2018, but it will not be discussed by the Committee. Information, requested by Decision 41 COM 7B.13, It is the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA, for its acronym in English) finished the 2018 and applied to the property with Panama's commitment not to approve any new hydropower project on the environment PILE. SEA results must be submitted to the World Heritage Center in Paris, France for analysis by IUCN, as mentioned, until 1 February 2018.

In 2017 mediante la Decision 41 COM 7B.13, the World Heritage Committee emphasized the following:

Commitment Cosa Rica and Panama as States Parties, finalizing the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the entire property 2018, the results should be analyzed by IUCN;
State party's commitment Panama not to approve new hydroelectric projects in the vicinity of the property until the SEA is available;
Information provided by the State Party of Panama that the contract for the construction of the Changuinola II dam has been canceled and further requests the State Party of Panama to confirm this decision once it officially enters into force after the necessary procedures, and to clarify whether the cancellation of this contract means that plans for the Changuinola II hydroelectric project will be definitely abandoned;
Potential inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger: The World Heritage Committee indicated that any development of new hydroelectric projects before completion and proper review of the SEA for the entire property would represent a danger to its Outstanding Universal Value (VIEW) in accordance with paragraph 180 of the Operational Guidelines and lead to their inclusion on the List of World Heritage in Danger;
Request Panama to continue monitoring the activities of dams Chan 75 and Bonyic, whose findings should be considered in the above mentioned SAE and cumulative impact assessment, and establish long-term monitoring program for these two projects to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
Request to States Parties of Costa Rica and Panama to submit to the World Heritage Center, before 1 December 2018, an update on the state of conservation of the property report and the implementation of the above, for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its 43rd session 2019.

Darien National Park:

As far as we know, no request for documentation regarding the “Darien National Park” for Session 42 COM 2018.

Regards,

Katti Osorio, Ph.D.

World Heritage Panamanian / Panamanian World Heritage

Update: Third Day Session 42 COM (Tuesday 26 June)

As expected, the Draft Decision 42 COM 7A.10 “Fortifications on the Caribbean Coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo” It was approved without discussion by the World Heritage Committee, becoming the Decision 42 COM 7A.10. The full text translated into Spanish unofficially is on this blog, here.
Video Session 42 COM at the time of approval without debate of the draft decisions for the Latin America and Caribbean, down, It is in English. Starts the minute 3:21:14.

Update: Fifth Day Session 42 COM (jueves 28 June)

As expected, the Draft Decision 42 COM 7B.87 “Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection” It was approved without discussion by the World Heritage Committee, becoming the Decision 42 COM 7B.87. The full text translated into Spanish unofficially is on this blog, here.
Video Session 42 COM at the time of approval without debate of the draft decisions for the Latin America and Caribbean, down, It is in English. Starts the minute 5:41:51.

Panamá en la 41a Sesión del Comité del Patrimonio Mundial de UNESCO en Cracovia, Polonia

Panamanian tribes

Posted on July 13, 2017 by Katti Osorio

41a Sesión del Comité del Patrimonio Mundial en Polonia, 2017

Amigos de Patrimonio Panamá:

La 41a Sesión del Comité Intergubernamental de Patrimonio Mundial bajo la Convención de UNESCO de 1972 se celebró del 2 al 12 de julio de 2017 en la ciudad de Cracovia en Polonia. De las cinco propiedades que Panamá tiene inscritas en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial, cuatro ameritaron el análisis de los organismos asesores del Comité del Patrimonio Mundial: “Fortificaciones de la Costa Caribeña de Panamá: Portobelo y San Lorenzo”, “El Sitio Arqueológico de Panamá Viejo y Distrito Histórico de Panamá”, “Reservas de la Cordillera de Talamanca–La Amistad /Parque Nacional de la Amistad”, y “Parque Nacional de Coiba y su zona especial de protección marina”. Los organismos asesores ICOMOS, ICCROM y IUCN preparan los informes y borradores de Decisión para uso del Comité del Patrimonio Mundial.

Si bien el compendio oficial de las Decisiones adoptadas por el Comité aún no ha sido publicado, las Decisiones que se refieren a los sitios panameños conservarán íntegro el texto de sus versiones en borrador, pues fueron adoptadas sin pasar por debate por parte del Comité. La información que les comunico tiene como fuente dichos borradores de Decisión.

Patrimonio Mundial Cultural de Panamá

Portobelo. Fuerte la Gloria (Foto del Autor)

Portobelo. Fuerte Santiago de la Gloria (Foto de la Autora)

En cuanto a los sitios de Patrimonio Mundial Cultural de Panamá, las “Fortificaciones de la Costa Caribeña de Panamá: Portobelo y San Lorenzo” se encuentran en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en Peligro desde 2012, a causa del importante deterioro que sufren las estructuras militares y su entorno en un deterioro acumulado durante décadas. En 2015 Panamá actualizó su cronograma de trabajo y adaptación a esquemas aplicables de las Medidas Correctivas suministradas al país para el periodo 2012-2014 que habían caducado sin ser cumplidas, comprometiéndose a un nuevo plazo hasta 2019. Preocupan a Comité la falta de fondos continuos asignados al sitio, y urgió a Panamá a cumplir el plazo establecido, tras encomiar los esfuerzos reportados por el país por fortalecer la cooperación entre instituciones.

Plaza de la Independencia en el Casco Antiguo de Panamá (Distrito Histórico). Foto de la Autora.

El caso del “Sitio Arqueológico de Panamá Viejo y Distrito Histórico de Panamá” es extremadamente delicado tanto en sus aspectos técnicos como diplomáticos. La construcción de infraestructura vial viaducto marino de la Cinta Costera 3(1) afectó negativamente los elementos fundamentales que sustentan el valor universal excepcional de este patrimonio mundial. En su dictamen del año 2013 en su 37a Sesión en Cambodia, el Comité del Patrimonio Mundial consideró que dicha afectación negativa es irreversible sobre la relación del Casco Antiguo con su entorno marino inmediato. Por esta razón, este patrimonio mundial no podría ser inscrito en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en Peligro a razón de la irreversibilidad de la afectación descrita. Para evitar su salida inmediata de la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial ante las pérdidas sufridas sobre los elementos que justifican su valor, el Comité solicitó a Panamá proponer mediante un nuevo dossier de nominación a la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial al 1 de febrero del año 2018, que cambie los límites de la propiedad “Sitio Arqueológico de Panamá Viejo y Distrito Histórico de Panamá” de manera tan importante que se justifique una revisión fundamental al valor universal excepcional – en esencia, cambiar o renovar el valor agotado por uno nuevo. El proceso normal de evaluación demora aproximadamente un año corrido, por lo cual el resultado se conocerá en la 43a Sesión del Comité del Patrimonio Mundial en julio del año 2019.

A pesar de que el plazo de entrega del nuevo dossier de nominación es el 2018, este año Panamá presentó por solicitud del Comité, un informe de estado de conservación actualizado que describe tanto al Casco Antiguo de Panamá como al Sitio Arqueológico de Panamá Viejo. El Comité solicitó a Panamá informar en el año 2018 mediante un nuevo informe de estado de conservación para su evaluación por los Organismos Asesores, los diseños del proyecto de restauración del Hotel Casco Viejo del antiguo Club Unión, junto con estudios sobre acceso vehicular, gestión de residuos y otros aspectos para evaluar los impactos en el patrimonio, así como tomar las medidas necesarias para mantener la autenticidad y la integridad de ambos componentes del sitio de la propiedad, particularmente en la zona de amortiguamiento y en el entorno más amplio de Panamá Viejo.

También se entregó para la Lista Indicativa de Panamá el documento “Ruta Colonial Transístmica de Panamá”, que es paso previo y anteproyecto, diseño conceptual digamos, del nuevo dossier de nominación a la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial que deberá evitar la salida de la Lista de Patrimonio Mundial del “Sitio Arqueológico de Panamá Viejo y Distrito Histórico de Panamá”. Compendiará con éste a las “Fortificaciones de la Costa Caribeña de Panamá: Portobelo y San Lorenzo” y agregará el Camino Real y el Camino de Cruces.

Patrimonio Mundial Natural de Panamá

Reservas de la Cordillera de Talamanca–La Amistad /Parque Nacional de la Amistad

Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves / La Amistad National Park (Costa Rica, Panama) ©UNESCO Author: Marc Patry

En cuanto a los sitios de Patrimonio Mundial Natural de Panamá, las “Reservas de la Cordillera de Talamanca–La Amistad /Parque Nacional de la Amistad”, que es un Patrimonio Mundial transfronterizo compartido por Costa Rica y Panamá, recibió el encomio del Comité por la suspensión del contrato de construcción de la hidroeléctrica Chan II en el sector panameño Parque Nacional de la Amistad. Ambos países deberán terminar conjuntamente al 2018 la Evaluación Ambiental Estratégica (SEA) y presentar nuevamente un informe de estado de conservación al Comité en ese mismo año. Se recordó a ambos países el peligro que representa para el valor universal excepcional el impacto de las hidroeléctricas en este patrimonio mundial natural.

Parque Nacional de Coiba y su zona especial de protección marina. Fuente: whalewatchingpanama.com

El “Parque Nacional de Coiba y su zona especial de protección marina” recibió la advertencia de que ingresará a la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en Peligro en el año 2018 si el país no presenta avances significativos en protegerle de prácticas pesqueras que no son sostenibles en el sector. El Comité reconoció los avances logrados en la generación de un Plan de Uso Público y en la reducción del número de ganado salvaje que afecta el ecosistema de la isla, y urgió al país a adoptar las recomendaciones emitidas por las misiones de monitoreo de expertos de IUCN a Panamá en 2014 y 2016.

Acceso público

Todos los documentos presentados al Comité del Patrimonio Mundial este año fueron finalizados y remitidos por la vía diplomática al Centro del Patrimonio Mundial en París, en enero de 2017. Se encuentran en disponibles en línea como documentos de acceso público en la página web de UNESCO para la Convención del Patrimonio Mundial. Constituyó una gran satisfacción profesional atender como experta en estudios del patrimonio mundial estas tareas de gran importancia para el pais junto a un equipo de trabajo, en cuanto a los sitios de patrimonio mundial cultural, y con el equipo interinstitucional reunido por la Cancillería de la República de Panamá.

Como ha indicado el INAC en diversas declaraciones a los medios de comunicación panameños, se está gestionando desde 2016 un préstamo del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID) para sufragar los gastos millonarios de las obras requeridas, cuyos detalles asimismo reportó el país a UNESCO mediante los informes entregados. El Comité tomó nota más no lo ha aceptado como un hecho por estar aún en etapa preliminar.

Saludos,

Katti Osorio, Ph.D.

Fuente: UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention (website). http://whc.unesco.org/

(1) El viaducto marino de la Cinta Costera 3 es parte del proyecto licitado por el Ministerio de Obras Públicas “Preservación del Patrimonio Histórico de la Ciudad de Panamá” (2011 – 2013), ejecutado por la Compañía Constructura Norberto Odebrecht. Esta compañía brasileña se encuentra en la actualidad bajo investigación por el Ministerio Público (Procuraduría General de la Nación) y se relaciona con una investigación internacional por corrupción, en proceso.

Portobelo and San Lorenzo, Draft Decision 39 COM 7A.46 para el año 2015 (UNOFFICIAL translation)

Posted on June 21, 2015 by Katti Osorio

Dear Friends of Patrimonio Panamá:

Como mencioné en la entrada “39na Sesión del Comité del Patrimonio Mundial – 2015” de este blog, los documentos de trabajo de la Sesión 39 COM del Comité del Patrimonio Mundial se hallan en línea, y son documentos públicos de libre acceso, gracias a las políticas de UNESCO. Lastimosamente, solo pueden ser consultados en inglés y en francés, así que contribuyo como acostumbro, una traducción NO OFICIAL realizada por mí para ustedes:

Ítem 46 Document WHC-14/38.COM/8E. Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo (Taducción NO OFICIAL).

(Dale click aquí para la versión original en inglés, en la página 91 a la 94)

Año de inscripción en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial 1980

Criteria (i)(iv)

Year(s) de inscripción en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en Peligro 2012

Amenazas por las cuales la propiedad fue inscrita en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en Peligro

Estado frágil de la propiedad y degradación acelerada por factores ambientales, falta de mantenimiento y limitada planificación de conservación
Erosión
Falta de límites establecidos y de zona de amortiguamiento
Ausencia de un plan de gestión y conservación
Invasiones y presión urbana
Presiones del turismo (particularly in Portobelo)
Legislación insuficiente para la preservación del patrimonio edificado y de regulaciones que combinen ambos elementos de la propiedad.

Estado deseado de Conservación para la remoción de la propiedad de la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en Peligro.

Adoptado, véase http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4763

Medidas correctivas, identificadas.

Adoptado, véase http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4763

Marco temporal para la implementación de las medidas correctivas

Adoptado, véase http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4763

Decisiones previas del Comité, véase página (web) http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/135/documents

Asistencia internacional

Solicitudes aprobadas: 4 (from 1980 – 1993)

Cantidad total aprobada: USD 76,800

Para detalles, véase página (web) http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/135/assistance

Fondos extra-presupuestarios UNESCO

N/A

Misiones de monitoreo previas

Noviembre 2001: Misión de Monitoreo Reactivo conjunta Centro del Patrimonio Mundial / ICOMOS; March 2010: Misión de Monitoreo Reactivo conjunta Centro del Patrimonio Mundial / ICOMOS. Febrero 2014: Misión de Asesoría de ICOMOS.

Factores afectando a la propiedad identificados en informes anteriores

Estado frágil de la propiedad y degradación acelerada por factores ambientales, falta de mantenimiento y limitada planificación de conservación.
Erosión.
Falta de límites establecidos y de una zona de amortiguamiento.
Ausencia de un plan de gestión y de conservación.
Invasiones y presión urbana.
Presión del turismo (particularly in Portobelo)
Legislación insuficiente para la preservación del patrimonio construido y regulaciones que combinen los dos componentes de la propiedad.

Material ilustrativo: Véase página (web) http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/135

Problemas actuales de conservación

The 30 th of January, 2015, el Estado Parte presentó un informe de estado de conservación, que está disponible en

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/135/documents/

2014 fue un año de elecciones en la República de Panamá y un período de cambio administrativo en la administración pública, incluidos los jefes de las entidades públicas que gestionan el patrimonio histórico. Esto causó una baja tasa de ejecución de obras de conservación en el sitio. El presupuesto anual restante asignado para la ejecución del plan de emergencia se encontró insuficiente. El nuevo director y subdirector de la Dirección Nacional de Patrimonio Histórico tuvieron que familiarizarse con el caso, pero llegaron a conclusiones similares a las indicadas en el informe de la Misión de Asesoramiento ICOMOS del mes de febrero de 2014.

En respuesta a los siete puntos del párrafo 5 of Decision 38 COM 7A.20, el Estado Parte informa:

La Ley 30 of 18 November 2014 presta apoyo al Patronato de Portobelo y San Lorenzo con fondos del gobierno para el mantenimiento, conservación y restauración de la propiedad.
Colaboración está siendo solicitada al Patronato de Panamá Viejo para el asesoramiento sobre los mecanismos de gestión y entrenamiento del personal.
La clarificación de los límites de las partes componentes de la propiedad no ha presentado avances significativos en 2014.
La preparación del Distrito Plan Territorial del Portobelo se encuentra en su etapa final, desarrollado por el Ministerio de Vivienda. Su finalización está prevista para finales de 2015.
Asistencia técnica para la implementación del Plan de Emergencia es proporcionada por la Universidad de Alcalá de Henares, Spain.
El nuevo Plan Territorial de Portobelo contempla la ejecución de la planificación de infraestructuras y la mejora ambiental del sitio. Incluye la construcción de nuevas alcantarillas, y un nuevo sistema de recogida de desechos sólidos.
La Dirección Nacional de Patrimonio tiene en sus archivos los estudios técnicos llevados a cabo en la propiedad desde la década de 1980. En los últimos años se han realizado estudios de suelo en la zona de las fortificaciones de Santiago, San Fernando, San Gerónimo y el Castillo de San Lorenzo. Un estudio de evaluación de riesgos se desarrolló en 2013, así como un levantamiento fotogramétrico en todos los cañones que se encuentran en la zona de las fortificaciones de la bahía de Portobelo y en el Fuerte Castillo de San Lorenzo. Se espera que en el año 2015, la Dirección Nacional reforzará su colaboración con el Patronato de Portobelo y San Lorenzo de fortalecer las capacidades de gestión en la propiedad.

Análisis y Conclusiones del Centro del Patrimonio Mundial, el ICOMOS y el ICCROM

La adopción del Plan de Gestión del Patrimonio Mundial de la UNESCO (septiembre de 2013) y el Plan de Emergencia (March 2014) fueron pasos cruciales hacia adelante y constituyen marcos adecuados para la acción. La aprobación por parte de la nueva administración de estos planes y las recomendaciones previas, y el compromiso con su aplicación son bienvenidos. However, en general hay retrasos muy graves en la aplicación de las medidas correctivas y el cronograma adoptados por el Comité del Patrimonio Mundial en su 36ª reunión (Saint Petersburg, 2012) y la financiación de la aplicación de estas medidas, como para el Plan de Emergencia y el plan de Gestión, siguen siendo insuficientes.

En cuanto a las respuestas provistas por el Estado Parte a los siete puntos del párrafo 5 of Decision 38 COM 7A.20, se observa que:

Mientras que el Instituto Nacional de Cultura (INAC) es responsable del patrimonio cultural nacional (Law 14 of 1982), la gestión del lugar fue confiada al Patronato de Portobelo y San Lorenzo. La Ley 30 (2014) define que un presupuesto anual se asignará al Patronato para su administración, funcionamiento y actividades. La actualización de las medidas legislativas y reglamentarias y la definición de las funciones del Patronato siguen siendo necesarias.
De acuerdo con la Misión de Asesoría de ICOMOS 2014, el Patronato cuenta con un arquitecto y cuatro trabajadores, pero no se ha establecido una oficina técnica con capacidades adecuadas, a nivel del sitio. El fortalecimiento de los mecanismos de gestión y la creación de una oficina técnica permanecen pendientes.
No se han reportado avances significativos en la definición de los límites.
Se espera que el Plan Territorial para Portobelo esté concluido hacia el final del año 2015. Un análisis de este plan debe llevarse a cabo para evaluar si cumple con los requisitos definidos en el estado deseado de la conservación para la remoción de la propiedad de la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en Peligro (DSOCR).
La cooperación a nivel nacional (Patronato Panama Viejo) e internacional (Universidad de Alcalá de Henares) debe ser bienvenida.
Una vez que el Plan Territorial esté finalizado a finales de 2015, un análisis debe llevarse a cabo para evaluar hasta qué punto es capaz de responder a la recomendación relativa a la degradación ambiental y las deficiencias en los servicios de infraestructura que están afectando los recursos patrimoniales culturales y naturales.
Debe proveerse aclaración de si los estudios y la documentación disponibles son suficientes en respuesta a la recomendación en cuanto a los estudios sobre los procesos de deterioro.

Mientras que el Estado Parte presenta informes detallados sobre las actividades de conservación y consolidación y para el mantenimiento de áreas verdes emprendida en 2014, no se ha presentado planes de trabajo claramente establecidos y detallados, plazos y presupuestos para la implementación de las medidas correctivas adoptadas por el Comité del Patrimonio Mundial al momento de la inscripción de la propiedad en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en Peligro. El progreso en la aplicación de las medidas correctivas previstas para el año 1 (hasta septiembre de 2013), es muy insuficiente y se puede esperar razonablemente que las medidas para el período de dos a tres años (prevista para su celebración por septiembre de 2015) también estarán seriamente retrasadas.

La Misión de Asesoría ICOMOS de febrero 2014 hizo un amplio conjunto de recomendaciones y destacó la rápida tasa de descomposición del tejido histórico que siguió amenazando la integridad y autenticidad de los atributos que expresan el valor universal excepcional (VIEW) y permanece muy grave la preocupación de que en las condiciones actuales el estado de conservación puede deteriorarse aún más.

Se recomienda que el Comité inste al Estado Parte a elaborar una estrategia, planes de trabajo detallados, plazos y presupuestos para la plena aplicación de las medidas correctivas en un plazo de tres años, con la debida consideración del conjunto de recomendaciones de la Misión de Asesoría 2014; y que el Comité retenga al bien en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en Peligro.

Draft Decision: 39 COM 7A.46

(Dale click aquí para la versión original en inglés, en la página 94)

The World Heritage Committee,

Having examined el Documento WHC-15/39.COM/7A,
Recalling la Decisión 38 COM 7A.20, adoptada en su 38ª Sesión (Doha, 2014),
Aprecia la aprobación por parte de la nueva administración de los enfoques anteriores, y recomendaciones para alcanzar el Estado deseado de conservación para la eliminación de la bien de la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en Peligro (DSOCR, for its acronym in English) and recibe con agrado su compromiso con su aplicación;
Recuerda que la aplicación oportuna de las medidas correctivas definidas al momento de inscripción del bien en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en Peligro es un requisito esencial para alcanzar el DSOCR;
Lamenta los muy graves retrasos en la aplicación de las recomendaciones expresadas en la Decisión 38 COM 7A.20 y de las medidas correctivas antes mencionadas y expresa su profunda preocupación de que esto puede causar daños irreparables a la propiedad y a los atributos que sustentan el Valor Universal Excepcional (VIEW);
Insta al Estado Parte a elaborar una estrategia, planes de trabajo detallados, plazos y presupuestos para la plena aplicación de las medidas correctivas dentro de un período de tres años, con la debida consideración del conjunto de recomendaciones de la Misión Asesora 2014, y que tome todas las disposiciones legales, administrativas y presupuestarias necesarias para su implementación y le solicita que presente estos documentos hasta el 1 February 2016 para su revisión por el Centro del Patrimonio Mundial y los Órganos Consultivos;
Also requests al Estado Parte a presentar al Centro del Patrimonio Mundial, on the 1 February 2016, un informe actualizado, incluyendo un resumen ejecutivo de 1 page, sobre el estado de la conservación de la propiedad y la puesta en práctica de lo anterior, para su examen por el Comité del Patrimonio Mundial en su 40ª Sesión en 2016;
Decide retener a las Fortificaciones de la costa caribeña de Panamá: Portobelo and San Lorenzo (Panamá) en la Lista del Patrimonio Mundial en Peligro.

Fin de Traducción NO OFICIAL.

Esta Decisión Borrador forma parte de los documentos públicos de trabajo de la Sesión 39 COM World Heritage Committee, 2015. Las Decisiones en su versión final serán publicadas después del cierre de la Sesión 39 COM.

Regards,

Katti Osorio Ugarte, Ph.D.

State of Conservation Information System Update

Posted on October 15, 2013 by Katti Osorio

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

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/).

Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value to the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama (UNOFFICIAL translation)

Posted on July 22, 2013 by Katti Osorio

In order to facilitate understanding of the text Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value approved by the World Heritage Committee of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the Panamanian property inscribed on the World Heritage List under entry number 790bis, “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama” (the name Historic District refers to the Casco Antiguo of Panama City), I provide you with an UNOFFICIAL translation.

The original text in English, is of free public access and may be consulted at both the State Information System of the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO (http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4964), and it is also available on the direct link Documento WHC-13/37.COM/8E.ADD (on the pages 2 to 4)

Property / Bien	Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama
State Party / Etat partie	Panamá
Id. N°/ Id. N°	790bis
Date of Inscription / Date d’inscription	1997 – 2003

Brief synthesis

Panama Panamá, on the continuously occupied European settlement in the Pacific Coast of the Americas, was founded in 1519, as a consequence of the discovery by the Spanish of the South Sea in 1513. The archaeological remains of the original settlement (known today as The Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo) are the Pre-Columbian vestiges of the Cuevan aboriginal occupation of the same name, and currently encompass a protected heritage site covering 32 hectares. The settlement was a first rank colonial outpost, and seat of a Royal Court of Justice (Real Audiencia) during the 16th and 17th centuries, when Panamá consolidated its position as an intercontinental hub. Its growth in importance, since it profited from the imperial bullion lifeline, is reflected by the imposing stone architecture of its public and religious buildings.

During its 152 years of existence, the town was affected by slave rebellion, fire and an earthquake, but it was destroyed in the wake of a devastating pirate attack in 1671. Since it was relocated and never rebuilt, Panamá Viejo retained its original layout, a slightly irregular, somewhat rudimentary grid with, blocks of various sizes. There is archaeological evidence of the original street pattern and the location of domestic, religious and civil structures. The site is exceptional testimony of colonial colonial, the ruins of its cathedral, convents and public buildings showcase unique technological and stylistic characteristics of its temporal and cultural context. It also offers invaluable information on a variety of aspects of social life, economy, communications and the vulnerability of a strategic site within the geopolitical dynamics at the height of Spanish imperial Spanish.

In 1673 the city was moved some 7,5 km southeast, to a small peninsula, at the foot of Ancón Hill, closer to the islands that were used as the port and near the mouth of a river that eventually became the entrance of the Panama Canal. The relocated town, known today as Casco Antiguo or the Historic District or Panama, not only had better access to fresh water, but could be fortified. The military engineers, moreover, took advantage of the morphological conditions that complemented the wall surrounding the peninsula, all of which prevented direct naval approaches by an enemy. The area within the walls had an orthogonal layout, with a central plaza and streets of different widths; outside the walls, the suburb of Santa Ana had an irregular layout. There is a centrally- located, main plaza (which was enlarged in the 19th century) and several smaller post-colonial plazas on the fringes. Most of the seaward walls of the colonial fortifications and parts of the landward bastions and moat, survive. Several buildings within the District are identified as important for the country’s 17th-20th century heritage. Most outstanding are the churches, above all the cathedral with its five aisles and timber roof, San Felipe Neri, San José, San Francisco and especially La Merced, with its well-preserved colonial timber roof. The Presidential Palace, originally built in the late 17th century and partially reconstructed in the 18th, and early 20th centuries, is a revealing example of the transformations that characterize the Historic District as a whole. The House of the Municipality, the Canal Museum building (originally the Grand Hotel), The National Theatre, the Ministry of Government and Justice and the Municipal Palace are outstanding buildings of a more recent period. There are several exceptional examples of domestic architecture from the colonial period, above all the mid-18th century Casa Góngora, and also several hundred houses from the mid-19th to the early 20th centuries that illustrate the transformation of living concepts from the colonial period to modern times. These include not only upper-class houses from the entire period, but also 2- to 5-floor apartment houses 2 to 5 and wooden tenement buildings from the early 20th century, erected to satisfy the requirements of a more stratified urban society.

Particularly relevant is Salón Bolivar, originally the Chapter Hall of the convent of San Francisco, which is the only surviving part and Salón 17th-18th century complex. The Salón Bolivar has special historical importance as the site ofthe visionary, but abortive attempt by Simón Bolívar in 1826 to establish what would have been the world’s first multinational and continental the world.

The present-day appearance of the Historic District is marked by a unique blend of 19th- and early 20th century architecture inspired in late colonial, Caribbean, the Coast, French and eclectic (mostly Neo–Renaissance). styles. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, building styles evolved significantly, but spatial principles were fundamentally preserved. The Historic District’s layout, a complex grid with streets and blocks of different widths and sizes and remaining inspired in late Renaissance treatises, is an exceptional and probably unique example colonial colonial town planning in the Americas. These special qualities which differentiate the Property from other colonial cities in Latin America and the Caribbean, resulted from the construction, first of a railroad (1850-1855) and then a canal (1880-1914), that linked the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The construction of the canal, a landmark in the history of the Americas and the world, had a tangible effect on the development and Salón Casco Antiguo and its surrounding area.

Criterion (ii)

Panamá Viejo is an exceptional testimony of town planning of its period and culture. It exhibits an important interchange of of human values, since it bore great influence on subsequent developments in colonial Spanish colonial expansion, even in areas vastly different in climate and setting. The Historic District’s District reflects the persistence and interchange of human values, which have been oriented towards interoceanic and intercontinentalcommunications for several centuries at this strategic site on the Central American Isthmus.

Criterion (iv)

In both Panamá Viejo and the Historic District (Casco Antiguo), the and multiple-family types from the 16th to the 18th centuries, represent a significant stage in the development of Spanish colonial expansion whole. Panamá Viejo is an an exceptional example of the period's building technology and architecture. In the Historic District, the multiple-family houses from the 19th and early 20th (centuries) are original examples of how society reacted to new requirements, technological developments and influences brought about by post-colonial society-and the building of the Panamá.

Criterion (vi)

The ruins of Panamá Viejo are closely linked to on 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 Bolivar is associated with Simón Bolívar's visionary attempt in 1826 to establish a multinational congress in the Americas, preceding the Organization of American States and the United Nations.

Statement of Authenticity

The conditions of authenticity of both components of the Property “The Archaeological Site of Panamá Viejo and Casco Antiguo of Panamá”have been maintained. Upon abandonment, the core area of Panamá Viejo was never rebuilt and retained its original street layout. No reconstructions of archaeological remains have been carried out and all conservation and intervention work amongst the ruins has been done in accordance with international standards. Within the boundaries of the protected heritage area there are a few modern structures, but these are clearly identified and differentiated from the archaeological remains.

The urban layout of the Historic District of Panama Panamá can considered to be entirely authentic, preserving its original form largely unchanged. The organically developed stock of buildings from the 18th the 20th century have changed little over time. Most of the fabric buildings and fortifications, as well as the public spaces, is original. There is evidence that dressed stone and other building materials from the ruins of the Archaeological Site of Panamá Viejo Viejo were quarried and recycled to help rebuild the relocated settlement, and for the construction of buildings and fortifications and Salón Casco Antiguo, thus providing a measure of material continuity between the two components of the Property. In some well documented cases such, as La Merced, entire church facades were reconstructed on the new site.

The property has maintained the street layout, structural volumetry and the urban scale. Many streets retain the brick paving characteristic of the early years of the 20th century. Although a certain level of gentrification has has taken place, the traditional use has been largely preserved, with a mixture of residential, commercial, institutional and religious activities coexisting with non-traditional touristic and entertainment uses. Since the modern habilitation of interior spaces of buildings can potentially compromise the essence of the site by replacing traditional structural systems with modern structural materials, clear guidelines need to be enforced in the implementation restoration and rehabilitation projects for historic buildings.

Statement of Integrity

Both components of the Property meet the conditions of integrity. As a Pre-Columbian and Historic Archaeological Site with both historic ruins and stratified contexts, Panamá Viejo includes all the elements necessary to convey the Outstanding Universal Value for which this component was included as an extension of the Historic District and Salón Casco Antiguo original Bolívar. The size of protected area is consistent with the distribution of the relevant physical attributes, constituting a coherent and clearly defined whole. In 2012, the Via Cincuentenario was relocated from the core area of the site, generating a new border that will contain growth from the neighbouring communities. With the implementation of zoning regulations (Ministry of Housing Zoning Regulation of 2006) and a National Law (2007), a land and marine buffer zone that regulates the development of the neighboring communities and the waterfront has been established to control erosion of its borders.

The Historic District maintains, within its boundaries and those of the locally-protected adjacent area, sufficient representation of all the attributes that convey Outstanding Universal Value, particularly the urban layout, the dimension and distribution of ground plots, the remaining colonial fortifications and non-residential buildings of monumental value. A great variety of residential building typologies is also present. In almost all cases, the volumetry, rhythm of facade openings and long open, spaces have withstood the substantial number of comprehensive interventions interventions that have taken place since inscription in 1997, most of which have adapted the inner distributions of houses and open spaces within the plots to current requisites of privacy and safety.

Developmentand significant conservation challenges are the most critical aspect threatening the integrity Casco Antiguo. To address threats, the legislative and regulatory framework needs to be enforced and comprehensive interventions implemented, to reverse lack of maintenance of historic buildings.

Requirements for protection and management

The Property has various legislative and regulatory measures to ensure their protection and conservation. The original definition conservation standards areas of protection heritage back to 1976 (Law 91/1976). This law recognizes y define legally culture and heritage Law. It supplemented Law National Heritage of 1982 (Law 14/1982), I think the Directorate National Heritage (District), as part of the Institute National Culture and became entity State responsible for protection and managing Panamá Viejo and the Historic District. A Commission Also Advisory was created by this law. The Heritage Act establishes penalties administrative for destruction of the assets; the fines quintupled through a law 2003 (Law 58/2003). On the other hand, the Code Penal was modified in 2007 to include sanctions imprisonment for destruction criminal of heritage properties (Law 14/2007).

Each component of the property has been provided with a management framework in response to its peculiarities within the geopolitical town city Panamá and realities State administrative centralized. While Panamá Viejo is an an archaeological park of uninhabited public lands, surrounded by settlements unregulated working class, Historic District Live is an urban center with a mixture of functions residential and institutional presented challenges social and of associated conservation to processes of re–occupation and use of private and public property.

The management function Institute National Culture about sites protected historical has been supplemented and enhanced by philanthropy private sector Technical Resources and administrative other state institutions. In the case of Panamá Viejo, on the Patronage Panamá Viejo, nonprofit organization The lucro, public-private mixed with a legal mandate to manage the central government subsidies and lift their own funds, supports site maintenance, preservation architectural and research projects.

In Case historic district of Panama, a law of 1997 (Decree-Law 9/1997) sets specific guidelines for interventions architectural and protection extended an area adjacent. Also, provided a number of incentives fiscal restoration projects and reinforced paper Advisory Commission for the process of project approval property is more efficient and transparent. Regulations were approved Detailed mas (Decree Executive 51/2004), with orientations including zoning and infrastructure aspects, and was provided a manual conservation, with specific recommendations for interventions architectural and new construction. Functions protection and management Institute National Culture is supplemented creating new public body agency: the Office Hull Old (OCA), that developed a Plan the Maestro assumed the role of coordination agency. A land and marine established around peninsula where is Historic District. Building Permits and occupation and the taxation corresponding remain the responsibility municipal authorities elected, however, the approval of plans architectural and documents to projects located in the Historic District remain the responsibility exclusive the Directorate National Heritage. The formulation, application and periodic review of a Plan Heritage Management integral is required to ensure that conservation and managing both components occurs within scheme coordinated.

———End UNOFFICIAL translation———

The following figure, drawn on a map of Google Maps by the author of this blog, property shows “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama”, where the Old Town Historic District is. While both components are separated about eight kilometers, constitute a single property.

A single property: Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama (790bis) (Panamá)

Note:

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

Posted on July 11, 2013 by Katti Osorio

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,

Having examined Document WHC-37/37.COM/7B.Add,

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,

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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/).

The State of Conservation of Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama in 2013 (unofficial translation)

Posted on June 22, 2013 by Katti Osorio

To facilitate understanding of the text of the State of Conservation prepared by the World Heritage Centre the United Nations Organization for Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the Panamanian property inscribed on the World Heritage List under entry number 790bis, “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama” (the name Historic District refers to the Casco Antiguo of Panama City), Here I provide an UNOFFICIAL translation.

The original text in English can be consulted both in the Information System of the State of Conservation of the World Heritage Centre of UNESCO (http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/1975), and also available in, http://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/123027 (on the pages 184 to 190)

————–

Unofficial translation.

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

(C 790bis)

Year of inscription on the List of World Heritage
1997, extension at 2003
Criteria
(ii) (iv) (vi)
Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger
N/A
Previous decisions of the Committee
See: http://whc.unesco.org/en/lis/790/documents/Asistencia Internacional
N/A
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
N/A
Previous missions monitoring

Previous Missions Monitoring

March 2009: Reactive Monitoring Mission joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS

March 2010: Because of the reactive monitoring mission of the joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS to Portobelo and San Lorenzo, conducted a technical visit to the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District, as requested by the authorities of Panama.

October 2010: Joint reactive monitoring mission of the World Heritage Centre with ICOMOS.

Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports

to) The serious deterioration of historic buildings that threatens the Outstanding Universal Value;
b) Conflicts of interests of different stakeholders in relation to the use, management and conservation of the historic center;
c) Limited capacity for rehabilitation and maintenance of historic buildings;
d) The deficiencies in the implementation of the legislative framework for the protection;
and) The lack of clear policy implementation and management of the property conservacióno;
f) Demolition of buildings and urban ensembles;
g) The forced displacement of occupants and squatters;
h) Urban development projects within the protected area (namely, Cinta Costera).
Material ilustrativo
See page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/790
y http://whc.unesco.org / and / soc

Current conservation issues

The State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property 31 th of January, 2013, Additional information was submitted on 12 February 2013. More detailed information on the Cinta Costera III project, including information on the impact of the project and in urban transport and mobility strategy for the Historic District of Panama had been submitted by the State party on 21 September and 9 of November, 2012. The 14 March 2013, the State party made a presentation at the World Heritage Centre on the progress in developing the management plan set of two World Heritage properties in Panama: Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama, Portobelo and San Lorenzo, Historic District plus Panama and Old Panama Archaeological Site.

to) Buffer zone and inventory retrospective

A request for minor changes to the boundaries was presented by the State party on 29 th of January, 2013 and additional information regarding the 15 February 2013. On 14 March 2013 was also presented an additional map. However, the proposed minor modifications to the boundaries does not meet the requirements of the Operational Guidelines, therefore requested the State party clarify and complete information presentation.

b) Legislative Framework, policy and management system for the property.

The information presented includes a progress report on the development and implementation of policies and procedures manual for the restoration and rehabilitation of the Old Town Panama City, which was approved in 2004. The manual makes clear the basic requirements for plan approval and the approval of permits for construction and occupancy. There has been no accurate information on the implementation of these tools.

The state party also provided information on the formulation of the "Panama Plan UNESCO Heritage Management" on a presentation made at UNESCO 14 March 2013. The information provided notes to prepare a protocol for the management of the two cultural World Heritage properties in Panama, August 2012; said the protocol signed by all the major players operating plan ensures. A coordinating body is established and also a National Natural and Cultural Heritage will function as a technical advisory body. The Commission integrates various ministries and management entities Portobelo and San Lorenzo, well as Panama Viejo. Presidential Decree to establish a Commission official is under review currently.

The draft Management Plan included in the report presents a list of a number of objectives for both conservation and management of World Heritage cultural properties. The Plan contains background information, an assessment of the current situation and the strategies and actions proposed for the various sectors, structured under the following headings: Knowledge plan, protection and conservation plan, urban planning, plan public space and landscaping, economic development plan, cultural promotion plan and monitoring plan. The document also includes a table of actions to be implemented, cost proposed and identified for the execution times (urgent, medium and long term). While the Management Plan includes a useful systematic evaluation and identifies specific activities, would benefit from the identification of a precise route to address the state of conservation of the built environment, criteria and guidance for interventions, that could be used as a consistent framework to guide decision-making, taking into consideration the conditions of authenticity and integrity of the property. Additional information is required as to whether the proposed management arrangements are in operation and whether it has achieved funding to implement urgent actions identified.

The report submitted by the State party also included the Master Plan for the rehabilitation and restoration of the historic monuments of the Old Town Panama City, dated January 2011. No information was given about the degree of implementation of the Master Plan will be essential and clearly integrated with the Management Plan under development.

c) Condition of the property

Since 2008, World Heritage Committee has expressed concern about the state of conservation of the Historic Center, Particularly with regard to the existence of a significant number of historic buildings mostly dilapidated and neglected.

The State party reports progress with certain steps to begin addressing these problems. For example, actions have been carried out for replacement of sidewalks and painting sidewalks cords, to place pavement, for the installation of storm drains, for the underground electrical and communications, and reconstruction of sewerage infrastructure. It also notes that the historic center visits were carried out to monitor the progress of the actions implemented, including the state of conservation of historic buildings.

More detailed information submitted by the State party considers the magnitude of the problem: of the 845 lots in the historic district, 40,3% is considered to be in good condition, on the 5,8% has unfinished works, 9,8% are vacant lots, 26,4% are inhabited and in poor condition and 17,6% are unoccupied and in poor condition. It is claimed that this analysis will be used for summoning their owners to initiate processes “unlocking value” by National Trust (DNPH) and apply sanctions where appropriate. However, no additional information was provided on whether the Emergency Plan interventions, prepared in 2009, revised in accordance with the provisions provided for in Schedule Management Plan to identify priority actions for implementation and to include a practical plan for implementation, including the resources required and the time schedule for implementation. This review has been requested by the World Heritage Committee since its 35th meeting (UNESCO, 2011).

On the Road Cinquantenaire, State party reports that it has continued to work on his removal from the Old Panama Archaeological Site. In consideration of the new alignment, actions are being implemented as archaeological studies, relocation of utilities, and relocation of affected families. As requested by the Environmental Impact Study (EIA), Archaeological Rescue Plan of Panama Viejo was implemented. However, any Heritage Impact Assessment has been done yet for review.

d) Coastal Belt Project

i. Background

Reactive monitoring mission to the property in 2009 Phase II said Cinta Costera project, located in the seaside area of the Embankment, 'd been built without conducting environmental impact studies or heritage impact studies, without informing the World Heritage Committee. Additionally, The mission noted that the Phase III project planned at that time could have an impact on the property; consequently the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd Session (Seville 2009) requested that the State party betray a final report, including the analysis and monitoring of the impacts of the construction of the Cinta Costera Phase II and the potential impacts on the property for the possible continuation of Phase III.

In 2010, the conservation status report considered by the World Heritage Committee at its 34th Session (Brasilia, 2010) noted that was expected at the time that Phase III of the Coastal continue with a tunnel would cross approximately 1 km of the historic center or using surround the Peninsula Historic District. Reactive monitoring mission 2010 verified that the property had continued work on Phase II and it was not possible seek additional information regarding the social, conservation requirements, or project impact assessments. It was also noted that Phase II of the Coastal had resulted in the radical transformation of the coastline and impacted the character of the old port area on the Embankment. The mission noted that the proposal from the Cinta Costera Phase III to encircle the peninsula could have an aggressive impact on targeted views to and from the historic center and could impact on the conditions of authenticity and integrity of the property. He also noted that any alternative to the continuation of the project in Phase III would have been sufficiently explored so far. In Decision 34 COM 7B.113, World Heritage Committee requested the State party to stop the Cinta Costera project and submit the necessary technical studies and impact assessments prior to approval and implementation, and to explore and submit alternative proposals to address the concerns surrounding traffic effectively.

At its 35th Session (UNESCO, 2011) World Heritage Committee noted the commitment made by the State party in the session of the Committee to submit all projects, and studies related to alternative proposals for future works of the Cinta Costera Phase III evaluation, including technical specifications and heritage impact studies. The Committee also requested that the construction of Phase III of the coastal strip was discontinued, because it could potentially have an adverse impact on the outstanding universal value of the property.

The 31 th of January, 2012, the State party submitted, as the only alternative was submitting for consideration and review by the World Heritage Committee, a final proposal to build a viaduct Maritime, Phase III de la Cinta Costera, World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS. In the state of conservation report considered by the World Heritage Centre in its 36th Session (Saint Petersburg, 2012) noted, assessment based on Heritage Impact Study, the project meant a potential threat to the integrity and authenticity of the property as it would transform the traditional form of the Historic District, their appearance in the coastline and irreversibly compromise the relationship between the historic center and the sea and would impact particularly property environment on the peninsula and the uniqueness of the fortified. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider that had not yet been sufficiently explored alternative solutions, nor had they been presented global technical evaluations to rule out other options. The statement for the evaluation of a single proposal also excluded the possibility of talking about other possible solutions. The World Heritage Committee requested, in Decision 36 COM 7B.103, that impact studies on the outstanding universal value of the property were carried out and also requested the State party to implement a series of measures to address comprehensively the precarious state of conservation of the property.

The 21 th of January, 2013, the State party provided a report “Solutions for the future traffic demand Panama City”, prepared by Halcrow Consulting. This report explains the rapid growth of the city of Panama and and provides details of the traffic problem and asserts that the Maritime Viaduct urban freeways have three lanes in each direction, directly connecting Balboa Avenue and the Avenue of the Poets. The report does not provide details of alternative options to cope with increased traffic recognized (vehicular).

ii Current Situation

The 7 th of September, 2012, the State party made a presentation on UNESCO's “Impact of the Cinta Costera III Marine Viaduct to its outstanding universal value under the criteria currently enrolled C790 Property, Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama”. In further communication with the World Heritage Centre, during September 2012, the State party indicated that the option presented was revised to address impacts identified through the incorporation of mitigation and compensation measures. He stressed that the island of San Felipe, which had been outside the Presidential Palace, had been removed from the final design.

The 24 December 2012, a letter from civil society was received by the Director General of UNESCO providing notification of maritime viaduct construction. The 17 October 2012 a letter from the Permanent Delegation to UNESCO Panama was received in response to the request for information regarding claims to the start of construction. The State party indicated that the impact study submitted in September 2012 for evaluation was considered as formal compliance with paragraphs 6 and 7 the decision of the World Heritage Committee (36 COM 7B.103) and therefore considered that the construction of the Interconnection on Carretera Maritime Viaduct could begin. The letter also confirmed the State party's willingness to receive suggestions, contributions and input on the technical feasibility necessary to optimize the design and reported that delegations World Heritage Committee had visited the site for this purpose. In January 2013, information available in the public domain indicated that nearly 50% Viaduct was built. For official communication, the State party confirmed the day 25 th of April, 2013 that 55% infrastructure has been completed.

iii. Assessment of impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property

The impact study submitted by the State party noted that the Maritime Viaduct, Phase III of the coastal strip does not affect enrollment criteria of the property. However, The report highlighted the attributes of the property in terms of shape and design that influenced the evolution of military architecture in the Americas. Emphasized its low profile and adaptation of the settlement to the shape of the peninsula, and considered the paramount importance of the location and environment, both critical attributes for authenticity Property. The report indicates “the main reason why the city was moved after the destruction of Panama Viejo was the desire to fortify. As the site of the cove was paid (himself) for the construction of a fortified, was selected despite its narrowness. The peninsula had an additional advantage: on their flanks to the east and south beach has an area of sharp rocks that have significantly hindered any attempt to attack from there. Given these characteristics, this environment was an integral part of the defensive system.”

The study highlighted that the current environment and landscape, understood as being composed of the Historic District, Panama Bay around (Estes) and panoramas, Waterfront (waterfront), the skyline of Panama and Ancon Hill, who had remained unchanged in terms of the location of the Historic Center, the atmosphere of sharp rocks to the east and south of San Felipe, about three rocks that appear in historical cartography as “The Three Sisters”, be altered. The report included a photo, taken from Google Earth, corresponding exactly to an eighteenth century map of the city and it further emphasized that “at a distance, Historical Center landscape seems mostly unchanged from the nineteenth century”. The report also mentions that “clear vision, in their perception of foreground and background, is part of the collective memory of the population of the capital”. Indirect impacts identified are classified to include visual effects, impact noise, tides, metropolitan scene background, functional, and territorial relationship on the site. The report acknowledges the indirect visual impacts on the environment of the coastline of the property and the graduates as large to very large changes (209, 213 – 215). Despite these considerations, The report considered that the visual impact on the environment of the coastline could be mitigated by design changes. No technical detail was provided in terms of mitigation measures envisaged to ensure that the viaduct does not adversely impact the environment of the coastline.

Conclusion

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies wish to attract the attention of the Committee the current condition of the property, where it is reported that the 44% inventoried historic buildings is in extremely poor condition, a problem that has been unattended since 2008. Although the proposed development of the Management Plan can be viewed as a positive step forward, still no indication that the system is fully operational requirements or that adequate resources have been secured.

To date, despite requests made by the World Heritage Committee, unfortunately there is no indication as to whether the Emergency Plan interventions, outlined in 2009, revised in accordance with the provisions made in the guidelines of the Management Plan in order to identify priority actions and to include a practical plan for implementation, schedules including required resources and expected to implement actions. This needs to be implemented urgently to ensure the conservation and protection of the factory built.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies agree with the need to consider improvements to the road infrastructure to meet growing traffic demands but note that no alternative to the Maritime Viaduct was sufficiently explored and that construction began without giving the World Heritage Committee , and identification of possible recommendations. They take note of the efforts made to conduct impact studies but consider that, despite adverse impacts have been identified with the option selected for the Viaduct Maritime, there was no clear explanation in any of the documents provided on why other alternatives were completely rejected. Also, the report “Solutions for the future traffic demand Panama City” underlines the rapid growth of the City of Panama and the challenges it faces in terms of traffic demand and the urgent need to reorganize the road infrastructure. However, (the report) focuses on justifying why the Maritime Viaduct is the only alternative without considering any alternative or balance their advantages and disadvantages. No justifications supported the viaduct indicating that effectively provide and more importantly, sustainably, long-term solutions to these problems of road traffic.

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, also be impacted adversely.

The Viaduct Maritime, which, when it is completed within a few months, closely encircle the coastline that has been the edge of the Historic District since its founding in the seventeenth century, produced alter the views to and from the historic center. Also, the work already done in this large-scale infrastructure is significantly and adversely impact the integrity and authenticity of the property, in terms of the way it communicates its historic and defensive strategic position in the Central American Isthmus, crucial attribute of its Outstanding Universal Value.

Given the current level and extent of the adverse impact on the outstanding universal value of the property resulting from the construction of the viaduct Maritime and current conservation status of the factory built, on the (Center) World Heritage Advisory Bodies note that the World Heritage Committee may wish to inscribe this property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Draft Decision: 37 COM 7B.100

The World Heritage Committee,

Having examined Document WHC-13 /37.COM/7B.Add,
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 36ta (Saint Petersburg, 2012), respectively, and concern that the construction of the Cinta Costera Phase III (Maritime Viaduct) affect adversely on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property,
Recalling also that the condition reports and reports of reactive monitoring missions 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;
Notes progress in the development of a Management Plan, as to quantify the number of buildings at risk and as for work on urban facades (streetscapes), and underground infrastructure, and reiterates its deep concern about the general state of conservation of the property, and regrets that not enough progress has been made globally in addressing critical issues and sustainable, or implementation of the Plan of Action agreed at 2009;
Also regrets the fact that the authorities are not yet sufficiently explored alternatives, traffic management solutions to long-term sustainable and decided, unilaterally, proceed with construction of the Cinta Costera Phase III (Maritime Viaduct) and requests the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd, 34th, 35th, and 36th failed to protect property;
Considers the work already done in building new Maritime Viaduct adversely impacts on property and decide register the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger, in accordance with paragraphs 177 and 179 of the Operational Guidelines;
Requests the State Party to invite as an urgent issue a joint reactive monitoring World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS to verify the degree of impact that the construction of the Cinta Costera Phase III (Maritime Viaduct) has had on the outstanding universal value of the property and to prepare the Desired State of Conservation, including corrective measures and timetable for implementation;
Also requests World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies to deliver a report on the findings of the reactive monitoring mission to review and decision by the World Heritage Committee at its 38th Session in 2014.

———

Note 1:

This draft decision was not approved as it was presented to the World Heritage Committee; was reviewed by a special working group, and approved this – http://patrimoniopanama.com /?p = 271)

Note 2:

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/).

The debate on the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama in Session 37 Com of the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO

Posted on June 19, 2013 by Katti Osorio

23 June 2013

The last point on Panama Viejo and Casco Antiguo: in the morning session of the day 23 June 2013, World Heritage Committee approved the Decision 37 COM 8E, based on the Draft Decision 37 COM 8E modified, that included the document WHC-13/37.COM/8E.ADD. Is adopting Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Valuethe, which will be reviewed (modified) Panama has met once Article 6 described under the heading 21 June 2013 of this blog Heritage Panama.

The document is self explanatory:

1) A Statement of Outstanding Universal Value represents a formalization, in an agreed format, of the reasons why a World Heritage property has Outstanding Universal Value. The concept of Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, as a prerequisite for the registration of a property on the World Heritage List, was introduced in the Operational Guidelines on 2005. All registered sites from 2007 present such a statement.
2) In 2007, World Heritage Committee (see Decision 31 WITH 11D.1) requested Statements of Outstanding Universal Value should be drafted and approved retrospectively for all World Heritage properties inscribed between 1978 and 2006, before the launch of the Second Cycle of the Periodic Report in each Region. (UNOFFICIAL translation, and Salón Documento WHC-13/37.COM/8E, page 2)

The Universal Declaration of Exceptional Value (retrospective) approved by the World Heritage Committee for “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama” contained in document WHC-13/37.COM/8E.ADD, from the homepage 2 to p 4.

21 June 2013

In the afternoon session of the World Heritage Committee, towards the end of the Session, the working group (Panama drafting group) gave the new decision for Old Panama Archaeological Site and Historic District of Panama, that developed with the consensus of its members. This decision was submitted for adoption without debate by the World Heritage Committee, and indeed was adopted in just five minutes, between the joy of living.

The text of the decision was read aloud, but simply passed on the screen to the World Heritage Committee. Not yet published the official text. I have two images captured on screen (French text):

Image 1: Article 3 Article 5

Image 2: Article 4 Article 6

Called my attention to Articles 5 and 6 (in French in the image):

5. Regrets that the State party has decided to launch the construction of Phase III of the Cinta Costera (viaduc maritime) which irreversibly alters the relationship between the historical center and its wider physical environment;
6. Application to the State Party to submit, d’ici le 1February 2015, a request for a significant boundary modification to enable it to justify a revision of the value…

(In Spanish, 5. Regrets the State party has decided to launch construction Phase III to Tape Coastal (marine viaduct) changing irreversibly relationship between the center historical and physical environment broader;
6. Requests State party submitting, before 1 of February 2015, demand significant change bounds that allow justify a review of buildings of monumental …(incomplete text)

It happens that the relationship between the historic center and the sea is essential for the Historic District of Panama (Casco Antiguo) communicate its outstanding universal value(1), value due to irreversible impairment, Panama must “revise” significantly after changing ownership limits “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama” to World Heritage.

Panamá, with great sobriety, stated through his spokesman, Panama's Permanent Ambassador to UNESCO Flavio Mendez, its work and thanked the working group, especially the delegates of Mali and its advice to the delegate of Brazil; said there is a lesson learned, Panama and faithfully discharge the opinion of Decision.

Once the full text of the Decision, know what the ambassador was referring lesson.

Video: Reactions to the final decision

Document: List of Participants. The Delegation of Panama is registered in the page 42 a la 43 Document http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2013/whc13-37com-2inf.pdf

20 June 2013

The afternoon session of the World Heritage Committee was suspended in order to allow time for the different teams that should address various topics of Session 37 COM. Among themselves, the working group to Panama (Panama drafting group) was working in the afternoon today (Cambodian hour). Yet reported their results.

In the working group could participate only representatives 21 Committee countries, This invited. The working group was selected,, organized and led by Cambodian Deputy, Sr. Ros Borat, Deputy Director of Heritage and Sustainable Development Cambodia. The other countries could attend the working group meetings as observers only. Panama is not among the 21 Member countries of the World Heritage Committee in Session 37 COM.

19 June 2013

Today 19 June in the early morning hours in Panama and around the 3:00 Cambodia PM, initiated the Panamanian property debate inscribed as UNESCO World Heritage, “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama“, based al repair 2013 and Draft Decision 37 COM 7B.100 (Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add, on the pages 184 to 190). This draft decision (which is also found in the SOC) requesting the inclusion of Panamanian property in the World Heritage List in Danger. He even suggested the removal of the world heritage list, and it was suggested to delay the listing of World Heritage in danger for another year.

For an UNOFFICIAL translation of Status and Draft Decision, click here.

The debate was very intense. Committee members failed to agree, and has established a working group, to achieve consensus in the case of Panama. Tomorrow morning (Cambodian) should begin working on a possible solution. It is a very delicate, by the issue of marine viaduct Cinta Costera III. The debate renudará when the working group to contribute their results.

This is the debate on video in English, divided into six parts 14:30 minutes each:

The team will be led by Cambodian Deputy, Sr. Ros Borat, heritage expert with thirty years of experience and Deputy Director of Heritage and Sustainable Development of Cambodia. He emphasized the importance of the participation of ICOMOS in the working group, although the formation of it was entrusted entirely to Mr. Borat.

Live broadcast: http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/37COM/

Starts at 9:00 pm, When Panama.

————

(1) “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.” State of Conservation Report 2013. Available in, http://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/1975 and also available in, http://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/123027 (on the pages 188 and 189). The bold were placed by the author of this blog.

Unofficial translation the same text: “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, also be impacted adversely.“

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/).

Draft Decisions for Coiba and La Amistad, approved without discussion

Posted on June 18, 2013 by Katti Osorio

Following the interesting topic of Session 37 COM World Heritage Committee in Cambodia this year, last night adopted without revision decisions Panamanian our world heritage,

“Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection” (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2013/whc13-37com-7B-Add-en.pdf, on the pages 71 to 74), and
“Reserves of the Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves / La Amistad National Park” (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2013/whc13-37com-7B-en.pdf, on the pages 61 to 65).

I note that the “Darien National Park” clarification of boundaries will be presenting on Sunday 23 June 2013, according provisional timetable 37COM Session. As seen, not be discussed, but as passed, although the draft decision is not in the working papers to today's date. (http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2013/whc13-37com-8D-en.pdf, page 22)

The list of World Heritage properties to be discussed in Session 37 COM es this: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2013/whc13-37com-7infrev-en.pdf

————-

NOTE:

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/).

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

Posted on June 17, 2013 by Katti Osorio

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.

Panama in Session 42 COM World Heritage Committee

Coiba National Park and its Special Zone of Marine Protection:

Draft Decision 42 COM 7B.87

Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo:

Draft Decision: 42 COM 7A.10

Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama:

Reserves of the Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves / La Amistad National Park:

Darien National Park:

Update: Third Day Session 42 COM (Tuesday 26 June)

Update: Fifth Day Session 42 COM (jueves 28 June)

Patrimonio Mundial Cultural de Panamá

Patrimonio Mundial Natural de Panamá

Acceso público

Ítem 46 Document WHC-14/38.COM/8E. Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo (Taducción NO OFICIAL).

Draft Decision: 39 COM 7A.46

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

2. 37COM 8E

Adoption of Retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value

Note:

Brief synthesis

Criterion (ii)

Criterion (iv)

Criterion (vi)

Statement of Authenticity

Statement of Integrity

Requirements for protection and management

Note:

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

Note:

Unofficial translation.

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

(C 790bis)

Current conservation issues

to) Buffer zone and inventory retrospective

b) Legislative Framework, policy and management system for the property.

c) Condition of the property

d) Coastal Belt Project

i. Background

ii Current Situation

iii. Assessment of impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property

Conclusion

Draft Decision: 37 COM 7B.100

Note 1:

Note 2:

23 June 2013

21 June 2013

20 June 2013

19 June 2013

Note:

————-

NOTE:

Antecedent: 2012

This year, Cambodia

“Draft Decision: 37 COM 7A.36

Update, 18 June 2013:

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