Tag Archives: World Heritage

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

Posted on by
4

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,

  1. Having examined Document WHC-13 /37.COM/7B.Add,
  2. Recalling Decisions 33 COM 7B.141, 34 COM 7B.113, 35 COM 7B.130, 36 COM 7B.103, adopted at its 33rd (Seville, 2009), 34th (Brasilia, 2010), 35th (UNESCO, 2011) and 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,
  3. 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;
  4. 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;
  5. 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;
  6. 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;
  7. 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;
  8. 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 by
2

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:

Part 1 of 6

Part 2 of 6

Part 3 of 6

Part 4 of 6

Part 5 of 6

Part 6 of 6

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 by
Reply

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,

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 by
1

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

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

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

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

Antecedent: 2012

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

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

Simple! But not easy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

f) Encroachments and urban pressure adequately controlled,

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

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

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

This year, Cambodia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft Decision 37 COM 7A.36 dice así:

“Draft Decision: 37 COM 7A.36

The World Heritage Committee,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update, 18 June 2013:

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

—————–

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

37th Session of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee

Posted on by
2

37th Session of the World Heritage Committee
Dear friends:

Thanks to the transparency policies of UNESCO, from 2012 all working papers World Heritage Committee are public information, freely available for everyone around the planet, as well as documents of State of Conservation (SOC) through a system of free public access information. I have prepared a small guide for the 37th Session, with the same documents in hand using delegates, to continue their discussions during the live and direct from Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and Salón 16 until 27 June 2013.

—

The 37th Session of the UNESCO World Heritage will be held in the city of Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and Salón 16 until 27 June 2013. As part of UNESCO's policies and its World Heritage Centre, all working documents to be used by delegates World Heritage Committee are public. They are available in English and French, here: http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/37COM/documents/

Panama has five World Heritage properties considered; them, “Fortifications on the Caribbean coast of Panama: Portobelo and San Lorenzo” (Not. C135) is inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger since last year, here: http://whc.unesco.org/en/danger/

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

During the 37th Session of the World Heritage Committee, Portobelo and San Lorenzo (although it will be discussed) have a draft decision to be approved as it is in the following document (English): http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2013/whc13-37com-7A-en.pdf (page 91).

The property, “Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District of Panama” (Not. C790bis), where “Historic District” refers to the Old Town of Panama, will be discussed in accordance with the following document (English): http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2013/whc13-37com-7B-Add-en.pdf (page 184).

As part of the transparency policies of UNESCO, and as they did last year, the 37th Session of the World Heritage Committee will be broadcast live and direct, with simultaneous English translation, French and Cambodian in all discussions of the Committee.

The live broadcast will be through the official website of the 37th Session in Cambodia, under the Web tab Casting, here:
http://www.whc37cambodia2013.kh/news/press/01/42.html

After selecting the Web tab Casting, and low transmission hours, you can select which of the three languages ​​described desired audio broadcast live video.

The schedule (time to Phnom Penh, Cambodia) is a table, here: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/2013/whc13-37com-3BRev-en.pdf

World Heritage properties in Panama will be discussed between Tuesday and Thursday of the attached schedule. For the time difference, conversions can be made for as the World Clock (http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html).

I hope this information, of character entirely public and freely available to everyone around the world thanks to the transparency policies of UNESCO, be useful to all those genuinely interested in world heritage in Panama. And of course, in all those around the world heritage sites inscribed on the World Heritage List of World Heritage in Danger, that are the heritage of all human beings.