You are on page 1of 15

LEARNING FROM WORLD HERITAGE

Lessons in International Preservation & Stewardship of Cultural & Ecological


Landscapes of Global Significance
7th Annual US/ICOMOS Symposium. 25-27 March 2004. Natchitoches, Louisiana

“Implementation of the World Heritage Convention in Argentina”

By: Maria Susana Pataro. Ministry of Foreign Relations, International Trade and
Worship, Argentine Republic.1

Introduction

At the XXVII Session of the World Heritage Committee that took place in Paris, in July
2003, Argentina had its 8th World Heritage Site included in the World Heritage List –
Quebrada de Humahuaca, the first cultural landscape in South America, having had a
remarkable involvement of the local communities in the overall process of preparation.
At present, Argentina is cooperating with Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru in
the Qhapaq Nan (Inka Trail) Project, which, if successfully implemented, might play a
significant role in the development of new standards for World Heritage Sites.

By analyzing the participation of Argentina in the implementation of the World Heritage


Convention since its adhesion in 1978, we intend to reflect on the problems the 1972
Convention faces in several countries in Latin America, as well as in other regions. We
hope, in that sense, to make a contribution towards the development of some axes of
thought for this Symposium, towards the First Periodic Reporting of the Latin American
and the Caribbean Region, to be held this year in China at the time of the XXVIII Session
of the Committee and, of course, to our own country.

Argentina and the World Heritage Convention: Two periods marked by a long interval…

For the purpose of this presentation it might be useful to bear in mind some basic
information on the country.

Its official name is Republica Argentina and it limits, to the north, with Paraguay and
Bolivia, to the east with the Atlantic Ocean, Uruguay and Brazil, to the west with Chile,
and to the south with Chile and the Atlantic Ocean.

Argentina is a federal country with 23 provinces and one federal district, its capital city.
Its surface – including the Antarctic region and the islands – reaches 3.761.274 km2 and
its population amounts to 36 million inhabitants.

The country encompasses five main regions, characterized by an extraordinary cultural


and natural diversity. To the west, the Cuyo Region, which comprises the provinces of
Mendoza, San Juan and San Luis and is home to the highest mountain in the Western
hemisphere, Aconcagua (22,834 ft.), the Northwest, including the Provinces of Salta,
1
The opinions in this presentation are the author’s own.

1
Jujuy, La Rioja, Catamarca, Tucuman and Santiago del Estero, the Northeast, with the
provinces of Misiones, Corrientes, Entre Rios, Chaco and Formosa, the Center with
Cordoba, Santa Fe, La Pampa and Buenos Aires and, last but not least, the Patagonia
Region, comprising Neuquen, Rio Negro, Chubut, Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego,
Antartida and Islas del Atlantico Sur.

The Argentine Republic adhered to the 1972 Convention as early as 1978.2 At present it
has eight sites in the World Heritage List -four cultural and four natural sites- and its
annual contribution to the World Heritage Found amounts to us$ 41,000.3

Between 1978 and 1985, Argentina was a member of the World Heritage Committee and,
in this capacity, hosted in 1983 the World Heritage Committee in its ordinary session,
held in the city of Mar del Plata. Nevertheless, it was not until 2001 -16 years later- that
Argentina participated again as a full member of the Committee - and, at present,
Vicechair of the Bureau on behalf of the Latin American and the Caribbean Region. It is
interesting to note that, over the same period, Brazil and Mexico were members of the
Committee for 19 and 18 years, respectively.4 Nevertheless, Argentina participated as an
Observer to several meetings of the Committee and the Bureau - yet without a systematic
follow-up of its decisions and of the Orientations of the Convention, at least until the
nineties.

Between 1981 and 1984, Argentina had three sites included in the World Heritage List -
two natural and one cultural sites:

Los Glaciares (1981, N ii, iii).

Iguazu National Park (1984, N iii, iv).

Jesuit Missions of the Guaranis: San Ignacio Mini, Santa Ana, Nuestra Senora de
Loreto and Santa Maria la Mayor (Argentina) - Remains of Sao Miguel das
Missoes (Brazil) (1983-1984, C iv).

It is interesting to note that for the period 1978/1995, no assistance was required from the
World Heritage Fund for any activity - the first submission for international assistance
dating only from 1998. It should also be pointed out that no Tentative List was drafted by
Argentina until 1995.

2
Ley 21.836. Argentina has also adhered to other main Conventions concerning the protection of cultural
property: the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed
Conflict and its 1999 Protocol; the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit
Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property and the 1995 UNIDROIT Convention on
Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects.
3
For a description of the sites see Annex 1.
4
Document WHC –2001/CONF.206/INF.3. Distributed at the time of the 13th General Assembly to the
States Parties of the World Heritage Convention, UNESCO, October 2001.

2
It seems obvious at this point that a long interval of stagnation followed the ratification of
the Convention and an apparently auspicious beginning characterized by a certain degree
of participation in the activities of the Convention.

We shall consider hereinafter the following “active” period, starting at the beginning of
the nineties and ending by 2003. The main reasons for the changes operated over this
period arise from different circumstances, both domestic and international.

Among the first, it must be pointed out that in 1994 the Argentine National Constitution
was amended and that the new text included an Article that clearly recognized the
preservation of the natural and cultural heritage as a value to be promoted by the
authorities.5 Also among the domestic reasons, it should be noted that at the beginning of
the nineties, Argentina began a period of transformation and modernization that led to a
more central consideration of the resources coming from tourism. And, as is the case in a
great number of countries, Argentine authorities –even those in charge of the cultural
sector– found in World Heritage a way to respond to demands from cultural and Nature
tourism and adventure travel.

At the international level, the period 1985/1995 corresponds to a significant expansion of


the World Heritage Convention, which spread rapidly in this continent. The first two sites
to be included in the World Heritage list were located in Latin America: the Galapagos
Islands and the City of Quito, included in 1978 as number one and two of the List,
respectively. In 1994, the number of States parties to the Convention in the region
reached 26, and the total number of World Heritage Sites amounted to 53 (38 cultural, 12
natural and 3 mixed sites).

By 1992, the UNESCO DG created the World Heritage Centre as a Secretariat for the
Committee in order to further develop relations with and assistance to States Parties,
enhancing the interactive work with Permanent Delegations to UNESCO in a very
positive way.

Within this general context, Argentina inaugurated then a new cycle, where various
actions were undertaken in a very positive sense:

a) Institutional framework for the implementation of the 1972 Convention.

By 1998, an interministerial informal group begun meeting in the context of the


Argentine National Commission for UNESCO in order to approach World Heritage
issues. By 2001, this informal group had become the Argentine World Heritage
Committee, a fully institutionalized framework for the implementation of World Heritage
Convention. It is chaired by the Secretary to National Commission for UNESCO and
includes representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Culture, Tourism and
Environment sectors, all of them closely involved in the implementation of the protection

5
Article 41. The Argentine Constitution was adopted in 1853 and amended in 1860, 1866, 1898, 1957 and
1994.

3
of cultural and natural heritage. It works in collaboration with local authorities and is also
open to consultation with NGOs.

Among the main functions of the Committee are the preparation and updating of the
National Tentative List, the submission of international assistance requests for the World
Heritage Fund, the submission of nominations to the World Heritage List, the follow-up
of the state of conservation of properties already included in the List, activities for
awareness and education on the principles of the Convention, and the drafting of
guidelines for delegations attending the statutory meetings of the Convention.

There are but a few examples of a similar mechanism in the world, and none in our own
region. This framework has been welcomed by the World Heritage Centre, which has
encouraged other States Parties to adopt it.

b) Inclusion of new sites in the World Heritage List.

Between 1999 and 2003, Argentina had four new sites included in the World Heritage
List - two of them from underrepresented categories in the Latin American and the
Caribbean Region, such as cave art and cultural landscapes:6

Cueva de las Manos, Rio Pinturas (1999, C iv).


Peninsula Valdes (1999, N iv).
Ischigualasto – Talampaya Natural Parks (2000, N i).
Jesuit Block and Estancias of Cordoba (2000, C ii, iv).
Quebrada de Humahuaca (2003, C ii,iv,v). Quebrada de Humahuaca is the first cultural
landscape of South America, and the third in Latin America and the Caribbean.7

c) Updating of the National Tentative List.

By 11/25/2001, the Argentine World Heritage Committee updated the National Tentative
List which -to this day, and with the exception of the sites already included- remains as
follows:8

Alto Rio Pinturas (*) C


City of La Plata, Foundational Urban Area C
Inka Trail C

6
Three main groups of sites were distinguished among cultural properties included by the Latin America
and the Caribbean Region: archaeological sites from the pre-Columbian period, sites from the colonial
period (most of them, historical centers or towns and monuments), and very few sites belonging to the post-
colonial period. See: Van Hooff, Herman “La Convención del Patrimonio Mundial y el estado de su
aplicación en los países andinos”. In: Paisajes Culturales en los Andes. Memoria narrativa, casos de
estudio, conclusiones y recomendaciones de la Reunión de Expertos. Arequipa y Chivay, Perú, 1998.
7
Most cultural landscapes can be found in Europe and Asia. For the Latin America and the Caribbean
Region, only Cuba had Vinales Valley (1999, C, iv) and the Archaeological Landscape of the First Coffee
Plantations in the South-East of Cuba (2000, C iii, iv) included in the List.
8
Document WHC-02/CONF.202/20, Paris, 24 May 2002. Distributed at the time of the XXVI session of
the World Heritage Committee, Budapest, Hungary (24-29 June 2002).

4
Ischigualasto and Talampaya (*)N
Las Parinas N/C
Quebrada de Humahuaca (*) C
The Road of the Estancias (*) C
Valdes Peninsula Provincial Park (*) N
Valle Calchaquí C

(*) Sites already included in the World Heritage List.

d) Participation in statutory organs and other activities of the Convention.9

By the beginning of the 1990’s, a systematic follow-up of the works of the World
Heritage Committee and of the Assembly of States Parties in the Convention was set up.
In 2001, Argentina was elected as a member of the Committee and it voluntarily reduced
the term of its mandate from 6 to 4 years, in order to assure equal opportunities for other
countries.

Argentina had an active participation in the debates leading to the adoption, during the
thirtieth anniversary of the Convention, of the Budapest Declaration, which clearly
expresses the close relationship between conservation, sustainability and development.

At the regional level, Argentina took part in a technical capacity in the First Meeting for
the preparation of the Periodic Report for Latin America, organized by the UNESCO
Bureau in Montevideo in March 2002.

Also at the regional level, Argentina was among the first involved in all meetings
concerning the Qhapaq Nan Project, and has strongly supported the idea of a multilateral
and transboundary project in the spirit of the Budapest Declaration, clearly monitored by
the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the World Heritage Committee.

Given its particular situation as a federal country, Argentina has insisted on the
participation of local communities having to do with the site, as well as on the
consultation with local authorities - considering that the Qhapaq Nan covers seven
provinces in Argentine territory: Salta, Jujuy, La Rioja, Catamarca, Tucuman, Mendoza
and San Juan.

e) International Assistance

Several activities have been implemented, mainly two seminars on the Convention, in
Buenos Aires (1999) and in Cordoba (2002). The latter drew a large participation of over
200 people, including site managers, officials in charge of the cultural, tourism and
environmental sectors, students, and NGOs throughout the country. The active
participation of MERCOSUR representatives should be noted, as well as some of the

9
An in-depth analysis of the Argentine participation in statutory organs over the past few years can be seen
in the excellent paper by Gonzalez, Ariel. “La Protección del Patrimonio Mundial, Cultural y Natural: Una
Revolución Silenciosa” Paris, 2002.

5
subjects proposed, beyond the main aspects of the Convention: cultural landscapes,
transboundary sites in connection with the Qhapaq Nan Project, and space technologies
as a tool to support cultural and natural heritage conservation.10

Where lies the problem, then?

Several situations, of very different sorts, took place between 2001 and 2003, posing
serious problems concerning the protection of cultural and natural heritage in Argentina
that should be urgently addressed.

In the national context, the dramatic social and economic situation of the country, that
exploded by the end of December 2001, lead to a chaotic period during which several
changes occurred within different areas of the government, creating a time of
discontinuity for those involved in heritage protection. Afterwards, conditions tended to
improve at least for a while.

The end of the peso/dollar parity, which had been in place since 1989, turned Argentina
into one of the cheapest and most attractive countries for tourism arriving mainly from
Latin America and Europe. In December 2003, there was a 35% increase in tourism, the
most visited sites being: the Patagonia Region, with the Glaciar Perito Moreno and the
Peninsula Valdes, the Iguazu Falls in Misiones, and the Northwest, with the Quebrada de
Humahuaca - three of our eight planetary jewels.

The extraordinary diversity of Argentina, from the cultural and natural point of view,
played a significant role in this context, with all the risks implied by that dangerous
tendency, unfortunately already quite in place, to encourage tourism projects even if they
might threaten the fragile nature of many sites.

The institutionalization of the Argentine World Heritage Committee posed such


difficulties as are inherent to an attempt at making institutions work together that were
not used to do so before, and also to people coming from different backgrounds, some of
them through political appointments and lacking the expertise or a continuity in office, or
both. An inter-institutional approach –which seems to be the only one to be adapted to the
world in which we live and to cultural and natural heritage protection– might be regarded
as a threat to institutions and people that are used to an individualistic and, let’s say it,
less-than-transparent way of doing (or not doing) things. In this context, the ineffective
role played by NGOs may also be observed, mirroring the lack of integration of culture
and nature by the public entities.

Some structural problems can be traced back to outdated legislation specially in the area
of cultural heritage and an insufficient knowledge of the complex and sophisticated body
of recommendations contained in the Convention an in the Operational Guidelines. An
additional problem is posed by the fact that different institutions, created in different

10
See: “II Seminario sobre la Convención para la protección del Patrimonio Mundial, Cultural y Natural. 6
al 8 de agosto de 2002. Córdoba, República Argentina.”Comité Argentino del Patrimonio Mundial, junio
2003, Buenos Aires.

6
periods and with varying aims, deal in a conflicting manner with the protection of
cultural heritage - producing overlapping, confusion and, as the bottom line, poor
performance . That can be said to be the case for the Jesuit Missions of the Guaranis.(11,
12
). Difficulties were also noticed in the formulation of projects, as well as in the
achievement of activities once the assistance had been received.

Another interesting situation that revealed problems was the drafting process of the
Periodic Report. Some of the additional difficulties reported were: the emergence of
disproportionate expectations in the communities associated to the sites, lack of
institutional memory, lack of cooperation between public entities dealing with cultural
and natural resources, lack of coordination between different institutions and
jurisdictions, scarcity of resources for research and management training, which made the
resolution of conservation problems more difficult, lack of un updated management plan,
insufficient tourism facilities in Iguazu and Los Glaciares.13

The recent incorporation of Quebrada de Humahuaca turned out to be a challenging


situation not only for Argentina but also for the whole Region, as very little or no
experience at all exists on cultural landscapes. The lack of a “conservation mentality” -at
the local and national level- can prove to be the greatest problem in setting up an
acceptable management plan.14

Finally, the Qhapaq Nan project is, by now, an enlarged -and instructive- mirror of all
these difficulties (15, 16).

Learning from World Heritage in Argentina

Most of the situations described are not exclusive of Argentina, thus some of the
approaches proposed to address the problems could also be usefully considered by other
Regions.

11
See Endere, Maria Luz: “Arqueología y Legislación en Argentina. Cómo proteger el patrimonio
arqueológico”. INCUAPA/Olavarría. Serie monográfica nro 1, 2000.
12
See; Systematic monitoring Exercise Report 1991/1994 UNDP/UNESCO, page 101 and Clarin journal
from 18/1/2004: ‘Patrimonio cultural; las ruinas de San Ignacio están en ruinas’ where it is reported that the
World Monument Fund includes the it in the list of 100 most endangered sites in the world.
13
See: “II Seminario sobre la Convención...”, page 95, chapter on “Periodic Reports”. Also See: Taller
Sub-Regional de Formación de Capacidades en materia de Gestión y Administración de Sitios de
Patrimonio Mundial”. Instituto Claes Olrog, Iguazu 2002.
14
See; Seminario internacional “La Quebrada de Humahuaca, Sitio del Patrimonio Mundial. Opción para el
Desarrollo”. San Salvador de Jujuy, 2003. In: www.cefired.org.ar
15
Document WHC-03/27.COM/INF.13. Distributed at the XXVII session of the WHC, Paris 2003,
concerning the nomination proposition of the Qhapaq Nan presented by the governments of Argentina,
Bolivia, Chili, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.
16
The challenges of the Qhapaq Nan project were dealt with by the author in the presentation :“El esquema
de Protección de la Convención del Patrimonio Mundial, Cultural y Natural de 1972 y otros Instrumentos
Internacionales y su Aplicación en el Camino Inka o Rutas Prehispánicas Andinas, para su Eventual
Inclusión en La Lista del Patrimonio Mundial”. 51st International Congress of Americanists, Santiago de
Chili, July 2003.

7
Working with an inter-institutional approach at the national level should be strongly
reinforced17, yet with some substantial transformations within the present structures
leading to the professionalization of areas that suffer from a continuous turnaround of
staff and from a predominance of political appointments.

The legislation should be urgently updated in order to reflect the high standards of
protection and the spirit of the international instruments ratified by the country, as well as
other UNESCO recommendations and declarations for the protection of natural and
cultural heritage.

In order to achieve these goals, it would be necessary a strong political will to be in place
and for political leaders to understand and take up the alliance between cultural and
natural heritage, conservation and development, as the international community already
has.18

A work of awareness needs to be done within the Argentine society to settle the question
of heritage protection, showing the strong relationship between protection, cultural
tourism and development. The importance of reinforcing the awareness of young people
and of action through the media cannot be stressed too much.19

The current and future management difficulties of the Quebrada de Humahuaca and the
Qhapaq Nan, both of them having a strong component of culture and nature reflecting the
exceptional biodiversity of the Andean region, need to be addressed through research and
capacity-training in cultural landscapes management.

An analysis should be put forward on the methods by which the role of NGOs might be
strengthened in a positive way, such as placing greater emphasis on interdisciplinary
work, and starting an updating process leading to more transparency and the widening of
their membership in a way so as to reflect the modern concept of heritage.

For countries such as Argentina, an increased sensitivity among international financial


institutions about the relationship between conservation and development should be
desirable.

As to UNESCO World Heritage Center, it would be desirable for it to develop some


specific guidelines, which should contemplate, in a friendly manner, problems such as the
management of cultural landscapes or further development of some crucial concepts -like
sustainability- that run the risk of remaining too abstract for many local managers.

17
In fact, it was this inter-institutional frame that allowed for the successful nomination of the Quebrada de
Humahuaca during one of the hardest periods for the country in recent years.
18
See: Report of the International Congress organized by UNESCO in Venice “World Heritage 2002.
Shared Legacy, Common Responsibility “.
19
See:” The Press and the Safeguard of Heritage” ICCROM, 2000

8
Donor countries should envisage the possibility of reinforcing UNESCO’s World
Heritage Fund for activities on capacity-building, research, and identification and
management of cultural landscapes.

A last word to say that all methods and means to enhance the protection of our heritage
should be undertaken within the spirit of this visionary instrument that is the World
Heritage Convention.

CREDITS:

UNESCO World Heritage Centre


Consejo Federal de Inversiones (C.F.I.)
Instituto Geográfico Militar

Maria Susana Pataro (msp@mrecic.gov.ar)


Buenos Aires, Republica Argentina, February 2004

9
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Comité Argentino del Patrimonio Mundial. “II Seminario sobre la Convención para la
protección del Patrimonio Mundial, Cultural y Natural, 6 al 8 de agosto de 2002,
Córdoba, Republica Argentina.” Comité Argentino del Patrimonio Mundial, Buenos
Aires, 2003. With assistance from the World Heritage Fund.

Constitución de la Nación Argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1994.

Endere, Maria Luz. “ Arqueología y Legislación en Argentina. Como proteger el


patrimonio arqueológico”. Serie Monográfica – volumen 1, INCUAPA/UNC
Investigaciones Arqueológicas y Paleontológicas del Cuaternario Pampeano. Olavarria,
Argentina, 2000.

González, Ariel Walter. “ La Protección del Patrimonio Mundial, Cultural y Natural: Una
Revolución Silenciosa” Paris, 2002. Instituto del Servicio Exterior de la Nación,
Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Comercio Internacional y Culto, Buenos Aires,
Argentina.

ICCROM. “ The press and the Safeguard of Heritage. Collection of press articles on the
subject of the fragility of cultural heritage and its conservation.” ICCROM, Rome, Italy,
2000.

ICOMOS. “Heritage at Risk. Icomos World Report 2001/2002 on Monuments and Sites
in Danger”. K.G. Saur, Munchen, 2001.

Instituto para la Administración de Areas Protegidas Dr. Claes Olrog. Consorcio


Académico Administración de Parques Nacionales – Universidad Nacional de Tucumán.
“Taller Sub-Regional de Formación de Capacidades en Materia de Gestión y
Administración de Sitios de Patrimonio Mundial”. Parque Nacional Iguazú, 2002,
Argentina. With assistance of the World Heritage Fund.

Pataro, Maria Susana. “El esquema de protección de la Convención del Patrimonio


Mundial, Cultural y Natural de 1972 y otros instrumentos internacionales y su aplicación
en el ‘Camino del Inka” o “Rutas Prehispánicas Andinas” para su eventual inclusión en la
Lista del Patrimonio Mundial.” Presentation at the 51st International Congress of
Americanist. Symposium: Tawantinsuyo 2003. Santiago de Chile, 2003. Abstracts from
the Symposium available in: Edicion de la Unidad de Antropologia, Instituto de Ciencias
Humanas, Sociales y Ambientales, CRICYT – Mendoza, Argentina, julio 2003.

Pataro, Maria Susana. “La Quebrada de Humahuaca, Sitio del Patrimonio Mundial. Hacia
una nueva etapa en la protección del patrimonio cultural y natural en la Republica
Argentina”. In the frame of the International Seminar: Quebrada de Humahuaca, Opción
para el Desarrollo”, San Salvador de Jujuy, Argentina, C.F.I. August 2003.
www.cfired.org.ar

10
UNESCO. Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural
heritage, adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session. Paris, 16
November 1972.

Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention.


UNESCO, WHC.02/2 July 2002

Systematic Monitoring Exercise. World Heritage Sites in Latin America, The Caribbean
and Mozambique. UNDP/UNESCO Regional Project for Cultural, Urban and
Environmental Heritage. Report 1991/1994.

Paisajes Culturales en los Andes. Memoria Narrativa, Casos de Estudio, Conclusiones y


Recomendaciones de la Reunión de Expertos. Arequipa y Chivay, Peru, mayo de 1998.
Elías Mujica Barreda/Editor. Representación de UNESCO en Perú,, 2002.

Paisajes Culturales en Mesoamerica. Reunión de Expertos – Memoria – 27 al 30 de


septiembre de 2000, San José, Costa Rica. Oficina de la UNESCO para América Central,
2002.

World Heritage 2002. Shared Legacy, Common Responsibility. Report of the


International Congress organized by UNESCO World Heritage Centre and Regional
Bureau for Science in Europe (ROSTE). Cini Foundation, Island of San Giorgio
Maggiore, Venice, Italy 14-16 November 2002.

Brief descriptions of the 754 properties inscribed on the World Heritage List 2003.
UNESCO s World Heritage Centre, Paris, 2003.

Journals:
Clarín, Buenos Aires, Republica Argentina

11
ANNEX 1

Description of Argentina World Heritage Sites20

Los Glaciares (1981, N ii, iii)

The Los Glaciares National Park is an area of exceptional natural beauty, with rugged,
towering mountains and numerous glacial lakes, including Lake Argentino, which is 160
km long. At its farthest end, three glaciers meet to dump their effluvia into the milky gray
glacial water, launching massive igloo icebergs into the lake with thunderous splashes.

Iguazu National Park (1984, N iii, iv)

The semicircular waterfall at the heart of this site is some 80 m high and 2,700 m in
diameter and is situated on a basaltic line spanning the border between Argentina and
Brazil. Made up of many cascades producing vast sprays of water, it is one of the most
spectacular waterfalls in the world. The surrounding subtropical rainforest has over 2,000
species of vascular plants and is home to the typical wildlife of the region: tapirs, giant
anteaters, howler monkeys, ocelots, jaguars and caimans.

Cueva de las Manos, Rio Pinturas (1999, C iii)

The Cueva de las Manos, Rio Pinturas, contains an exceptional assemblage of cave art,
executed between 13,000 and 9,500 years ago. It takes its name (Cave of the Hands) from
the stenciled outlines of human hands in the cave, but there are also many depictions of
animals, such as guanacos (Lama guanicoe), which are still common in the region, as
well as hunting scenes. The people who were responsible for the paintings may have been
the ancestors of the historic hunter-gatherer communities of Patagonia found by
European settlers in the 19th century.

Peninsula Valdes (1999, N iv)

Peninsula Valdes in Patagonia is a site of global significance for the conservation of


marine mammals. It is home to an important breeding population of the endangered
southern right whale as well as important breeding populations of southern elephant seals
and southern sea lions. The orcas in this area have developed a unique hunting strategy to
adapt to local coastal conditions.

Ischigualasto – Talampaya Natural Parks (2000, N i)

20
From: Brief Descriptions of the 754 properties inscribed on the World Heritage List. UNESCO, World
Heritage Center, 2003.

12
These two contiguous parks, extending over 275,300 ha in the desert region on the
western border of the Sierras Pampeanas of central Argentina contain the most complete
continental fossil record known from the Triassic Period (245-208 million years ago). Six
geological formations in the parks contain fossils of a wide range of ancestors of
mammals, dinosaurs and plants revealing the evolution of vertebrates and the nature of
paleoenvironments in the Triassic Period.

Jesuit Block and Estancias of Cordoba (2000 Cii, iv)

The Jesuit Block in Cordoba, heart of the former Jesuit Province of Paraguay, contains
the core buildings of the Jesuit system: the university, the church and residence of the
Society of Jesus, and the college. Along with the five estancias, or farming estates, they
contain religious and secular buildings, which illustrate the unique religious, social, and
economic experiment carried out in the world for a period of over 150 years in the 17th
and 18th centuries.

Quebrada de Humahuaca (2003, C ii, iv, v)

Quebrada de Humahuaca follows the line of a major cultural route, the Camino Inca,
along the spectacular valley of the Rio Grande, from its source in the cold high desert
plateau of the High Andean lands to its confluence with the Rio Leone some 150 km to
the south. The valley shows substantial evidence of its use as a major trade route over the
past 10,000 years. It features visible traces of prehistoric hunter-gatherer communities, of
the Inca Empire (15h to 16th centuries) and of the fight for independence in the 19th and
20th centuries.

ARGENTINA and BRAZIL

Jesuit Missions of the Guaranis: San Ignacio Mini, Santa Ana, Nuestra Senora de
Loreto and Santa Maria la Mayor (Argentina); Ruins of Sao Miguel das Missoes
(Brazil) (1983-1984, C iv)

The ruins of Sao Miguel das Missoes in Brazil, and those of San Ignacio Mini, Santa
Ana, Nuestra Senora de Loreto and Santa Maria la Mayor in Argentina, lie at the heart of
a tropical forest. They are the impressive remains of five Jesuit missions, built in the land
of the Guaranis during the 17th and 19th centuries. Each is characterized by a specific
layout and a different state of conservation.

13
ANNEX 2

Criteria for the inclusion of cultural properties in the World Heritage List21

The criteria for the inclusion of cultural properties in the World Heritage list should
always be seen in relation to another and should be considered in the context of the
definition set out in Article 1 of the World Heritage Convention which is reproduced
below:

“monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements


or structures of an archeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of
features which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or
science;

groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their


architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding
universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;

sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and of man, and areas including
archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical,
aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological points of view”

A monument, group of buildings or site – as defined above - which is nominated for


inclusion in the World Heritage List will be considered to be of outstanding universal
value for the purpose of the Convention when the Committee finds that it meets one or
more of the following criteria and the test of authenticity. Each property nominated
should therefore:

(i) represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; or


(ii) exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or
within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or
technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design; or
(iii) bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a
civilization which is living or which has disappeared; or
(iv) be an outstanding example of a type of building or architectural or
technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s)
in human history; or
(v) be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement or land use which
is representative of a culture (or cultures), especially when it has become
vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change; or
(vi) be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas,
or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal
significance (the Committee considers that this criterion should justify

21
From: WH.02/2 July 2002, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention)

14
inclusion in the List only in exceptional circumstances and in conjunction
with other criteria, cultural or natural).

Criteria for the inclusion of natural properties in the World Heritage List22

In accordance with Article 2 of the World Heritage Convention, the following is


considered as “natural heritage”:

‘ natural features: consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such


formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point
of view;

geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas that constitute
the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value
from the point of view of science or conservation;

natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the
point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty”

A natural heritage property – as defined above – which is submitted for inclusion in the
World Heritage List will be considered to be of outstanding universal value for the
purpose of the Convention when the Committee finds that it meets one or more of the
following criteria and fulfils the conditions of integrity set out below. Sites nominated
should therefore:

(i) be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth s history,


including the record of life, significant ongoing geological processes in the
development of land forms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic
features; or
(ii) be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and
biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial,
freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and
animals; or
(iii) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty
and aesthetic importance; or
(iv) contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ
conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened
species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or
conservation.

22
idem

15

You might also like