Year of inscription on the World Heritage List 1987
Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger N/A
Previous Committee Decisions see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/445/documents/
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved: USD 42,000
For details, see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/445/assistance/
UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds
Previous monitoring missions
November 2001: World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS Joint mission; March 2012: joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission
Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports
Illustrative material see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/445/
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2013
On 11 February 2013, the State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property, which provides information on the actions implemented further to Decision 36 COM 7B.97.
a) Preservation Plan of the Brasilia Urban Area (Plano de Preservação do Conjunto Urbanístico de Brasília - PPCUB)
The State Party reports that the measures that guarantee the preservation of the original spirit and characteristics of the Plano Piloto designed by Lucio Costa, are currently protected both at the District and Federal levels under the provisions of District Decree GDF no. 10.829/87 and IPHAN Rule no. 314/92. In addition, Institute of National Artistic and Historical heritage (IPHAN) has defined a buffer zone with Ordinance no 68/2012.
The Preservation Plan of the Brasilia Urban Area (PPCUB), defined by the Secretariat for Housing, Property Regularization and Urban Development of the Federal District, was completed in 2012. IPHAN evaluated the Plan and made several recommendations to ensure that the essential elements of the Lucio Costa Plano Piloto were preserved. These were partially adopted with the inclusion of guidelines in the Draft Complementary Law (PLC 52/2012) that refers to the current definition of urbanistic scales established by District Decree GDF no. 10.829/87 and IPHAN Rule no. 314/92 and which distinguish between determining, incorporated, and complementary elements. Notwithstanding these modifications, the State Party reports that the sectorization proposed in the PPCUB was not revised and therefore there is limited linkage between the definition of heritage area and the proposed Areas and Units of Preservation (AP and UP).
The PPCUB was approved by the Urban and Territorial Planning Council of the Federal District (CONPLAN) in October 2012 and sent to the related Legislative Body. IPHAN has requested that voting is postponed until revisions can be made, by the first semester of 2013. To that effect, a working group has been formed to revise the text so that adequate provisions be included in the PPCUB to ensure the conservation and protection of the attributes that warranted inscription on the World Heritage List. As underlined by the 2012 reactive monitoring mission, this question is fundamental to ensure avoiding any alterations in zoning and land use that could prove detrimental to the conservation and protection of the characteristics and spirit of the original Plano Piloto.
b) Management system
The State Party reports that the Ministry of Culture, the Presidency of IPHAN and the Governor of the Federal District have agreed in 2012 on the need for a concept for a normative instrument to regulate the adoption of plans for interventions. As for the proposed management system, PPCUB, the proposal recommends a local management structure that includes consultative measures to ensure participation by different entities and civil society. The proposal aims to ensure to the implementation of the Plan, the integration and articulation of the system with other entities at the District level, to identify areas of shared responsibility, the integratation of measures for collective decision-making and the introduction of monitoring measures to reduce infractions. The State Party reports on how the management arrangements would operate through the creation of different bodies and commissions to enhance cooperation and address decision making in regard to heritage conservation and management. IPHAN will continue to analyse the proposal and provide recommendations for review so that an agreement among all parties can be reached by the end of 2013. This will be essential to avoid the duplication of mandates and roles of the different bodies and commissions proposed as well as ensure the adequate composition of commissions in accordance to existing mandates at the legal level and to areas of competence.
The State Party also reports that resources required for the implementation of the PPCUB are included in the Federal District’s Multi-year plan, the Budgetary Guidelines and the Annual Budgetary Law. Additional sources of funding include the Federal District Urban Development Fund which allocates 15% of its budget to the preservation, protection and promotion of the Brasilia Urban Area.
Finally, the report notes that the operational capacity of IPHAN’s Federal District Superintendence has been increased with the hiring of additional staff. The increase in institutional capacity is crucial for the implementation of activities pertaining to the identification, protection, conservation and promotion of the property.
c) Mechanisms for approval of projects at the property
The State Party reports that there are procedures in place at the local and district level for the approval and implementation of projects at the property. The PPCUB integrates the existing rules and procedures and has also included a “Neighbourhood Impact Study” which requires the evaluation of potential impacts of a project on the preservation of heritage values. In addition, environmental legislation provides for different categories of environmental impact studies. No information is provided about land use planning for the property as requested by the 2012 reactive monitoring mission.
d) Infrastructure development at the Stadium and its surroundings
The State Party reports that the Mané Garrincha National Stadium has the objective of promoting the renovation of the Northern Public Recreation Sector through landscape transformation and vehicle and pedestrian access projects. The project reports that significant interventions are needed to effectively integrate the Plano Piloto’s northern and southern parks, including the creation of access points, parking, link with different transportation modes and construction of an underground connection beneath the Monumental Axis. IPHAN has not received the plans for the interventions surrounding the Stadium. These will be submitted for consideration and review to the World Heritage Centre as soon as they are available for evaluation by the Advisory Bodies.
The State Party also notes that the proposal of the Government of the Federal District for the use and occupation of quadrant 901, which would have resulted in significant alterations of the central sector and impacts on the integrity of the property, has been rejected by IPHAN in 2012.
e) Regulations to prohibit the construction of new buildings in open spaces and maintenance of characteristics of each urban scale
The State Party reports that IPHAN Rule no. 314/92, referring to the non-aedificandi spaces, is adopted in principle in the PPCUB. However, the report also notes that some of the solutions in the PPCUB proposed to resolve urban problems that have endured in the Plano Piloto are in contradiction with the aforementioned IPHAN rule. As part of the review process, it is expected that these conflicts will be addressed through the updated analysis of open spaces and the existing conditions at each urban scale and the precise definitions of policies will be based on the analysis.
f) Public transportation strategy
The State Party reports that the Government of the Federal District approved by Law n°4.566 of 2011 the Director Plan for Urban Transportation of the Federal District and its Surroundings (PDTU/DF). It articulates various modes and networks of transportation that prioritize collective and non-motorized means of transit and takes into account the principles set forth in the National Urban Mobility Policy. The programme is structured around six primary collective transportation axes (west, south, southwest, north, east, central area). The report provides details about the service areas to be included and descriptions of the expected infrastructure development, including the potential to operate light rail trails (VLT) on W3 North and South. No additional information is provided on the measures foreseen to avoid further deterioration of the W3 Avenue sector and the alteration in appearance and scale of the attached houses which have been changed from residential use. Furthermore, no details on the precise location of infrastructure development, on the technical specifications or Heritage Impact Assessments are provided as requested by decisions 35 COM 7B.121 and 36 COM 7B.97 adopted by the World Heritage Committee respectively in 2011 and 2012.
Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM
The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note the information provided by the State Party in response to the recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee. They recommend that the Committee express its concern that the issues that have been highlighted in previous state of conservation reports and in the 2012 reactive monitoring mission report remain only partially addressed. They also note that the potential way forward to address these conditions depends on the approval of the Preservation Plan of the Brasilia Urban Area (PPCUB) which, as noted in the report, still needs significant revisions in order to ensure that an adequate management system is in place, one that will protect the attributes that embody the Outstanding Universal Value of the property.
They wish to draw the Committee’s attention to their concern that no technical details or specifications have been submitted regarding potential infrastructure development and that no information was included concerning any Heritage Impact Assessments being carried out.
Decision Adopted: 37 COM 7B.93
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B,
2. Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.97 , adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012),
3. Acknowledges the information provided by the State Party on the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations of the 2012 reactive monitoring mission and notes with concern that the legal, technical and institutional requests were not sufficiently addressed;
4. Urges the State Party to:
a) Finalize the review of the Preservation Plan of the Brasilia Urban Area (PPCUB) and ensure that adequate provisions are included to conserve and protect the attributes of the World Heritage property,
b) Ensure that adequate regulations exist for the use of open spaces defined by the Plano Piloto in the review of the PPCUB,
c) Formally establish and put in place the proposed Management Structure;
5. Requests the State Party to submit, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines , to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2014 the proposals for infrastructure development around the Stadium and its surroundings, as well as those related to the Public Transportation Strategy, for review by the Advisory Bodies, prior to making commitments of approval or construction;
6. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre a progress report by 1 February 2014 and an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above by 1 February 2015 for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session in 2015.
Decision Adopted: 37 COM 8D
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/8D,
2. Recalling Decision 36 COM 8D, adopted at its 36th session (Saint Petersburg, 2012),
3. Acknowledges the excellent work accomplished by States Parties in the clarification of the delimitation of their World Heritage properties and thanks them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List;
4. Recalls that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies will not be able to examine proposals for minor or significant modifications to boundaries of World Heritage properties whenever the delimitation of such properties as inscribed is unclear;
5. Takes note of the clarifications of property boundaries and areas provided by the following States Parties in response to the Retrospective Inventory, as presented in the Annexes of Document WHC-13/37.COM/8D:
6. Requests the States Parties which have not yet answered the questions raised in the framework of the Retrospective Inventory to provide all clarifications and documentation as soon as possible and by 1 December 2013 at the latest.