Advanced search

State of Conservation (SOC)

Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (2012)

Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger

 

UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds

 

International Assistance granted to the property

Requests Approved: 0 (from2007-2012)
Total Amount Ap proved: 60,000USD

2012   International Expert Meeting - Conservation of Wood and Metal ...   30,000  USD
2007   Protection and consolidation of the Humberstone and Santa Laura ...   30,000  USD
Missions**

October 2004: ICOMOS evaluation mission; May 2007: World Heritage Centre site visit; April 2010: Joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission.

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

a) Extremely fragile nature of the industrial buildings that were constructed using local materials such as timber for frames, corrugated iron sheets for roofs and some walls, in addition to stucco and lightweight construction;

b) Lack of maintenance over the past 40 years as well as vandalism at the property;

c) Corrosion of metal cladding and dismantlement of some of the structural elements. A few buildings such as the Leaching House are liable to structural collapse if no support is given;

d) Very little conservation work carried out;

e) Damage caused by the wind. 

Corrective Measures

Not yet identified

Current conservation issues

The State Party submitted a state of conservation report on 8 February 2012 that responds to the requests made by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011). No technical or graphic information on interventions was submitted with the report.

a) Implementation of the Priority Interventions Programme

The State Party’s report indicates that this programme continues slowly with resources from the State and that several agreements have been established with various agencies and academic bodies to assist with further work. The report also mentions the various activities carried out throughout 2011 at the property. These include the surveying of sites associated with the saltpetre outside of the property, but in close relation to the attributes of the World Heritage property and which will allow a better understanding of the inscribed area. The recovery of public lighting for Humberstone is in progress, with tender proposals being prepared as well as intervention proposals for various buildings. The definition of conservation criteria is expected to be concluded in 2012, and although progress has been made in surveying and recording, no specific conservation works or architectural stabilization interventions have been undertaken as yet. In its report, the State Party however indicates that restoration work will commence on the Head Doctor’s House in 2012, as well as the consolidation and refurbishing of the general store at Humberstone, which will be used as an interpretation centre, and that resources have been earmarked for 2012 for the consolidation of the Santa Laura Surgery.

b) International Expert Meeting

The report notes that in regard to the International Expert Meeting, the International Assistance request is being revised in response to comments made by the Advisory Bodies and that additional information is being compiled so as to have complete data sets by the time of the meeting. The World Heritage Centre received in March 2012 updated information from the State Party indicating the proposed dates of 21 – 26 October 2012 for the Expert Meeting. A programme was also attached on the proposed schedule of work. The State Party’s report indicates that it is awaiting the results of the analysis of materials from the site from the Deutsches Bergbau Museum of Bochum.

c) Reformulation of the Management Plan

The report indicates that the updated Management Plan was submitted in October 2011 to the National Monuments Council for its review, and is expected to be sent before June 2012 to the World Heritage Centre. The State Party has mentioned that plans for museology, security, safety, strategic management and marketing have been included in the Management Plan.

d) Establishment of the buffer zone

It is indicated that the revised Management Plan contains a specific programme for the establishment of the buffer zone through its inclusion under the National Monuments Act. No additional information is provided on this. At the 35th session of the World Heritage Committee, approval was given for a minor boundary modification and the State Party was asked to provide a map showing the revised boundary and buffer zone and its related regulations.

e) Desired state of conservation and timeframe for the implementation of corrective measures

The Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger and the timeframe for implementation are to be developed by the State Party in consultation with the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies. The report notes that it will not be possible to comply with the timeframe previously established and that a revised timeframe can only be defined once processes underway have progressed and the required resources ensured. No Desired state of conservation has been submitted as yet. The World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies note that the results of the International Expert Meeting could assist the State Party in the elaboration of the Desired state of conservation and corrective measures.

f) Other issues

The report also indicates that the interpretation of the site has been identified as a priority, and funding has been provided through the National Tourism Board. A proposal for signposting at the property will be included in the Museology Plan currently being prepared. The World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies commend the allocation of resources for interpretation purposes, but would request the State Party to ensure that an adequate balance is achieved in the allocation of resources for visitation purposes and for integrated conservation programmes, critical to maintaining the property’s conditions of authenticity and integrity.

Conclusion

The World Heritage Centre and Advisory Bodies note the sustained efforts of the State Party in addressing the conditions that warranted the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. They note that the limited progress achieved to date is partially due to the challenges posed by the nature of the building materials, limited resources, as well as the time taken to develop adequate management arrangements. They recommend that the Committee urge the State Party to continue exploring means to secure the required resources to systematically implement the Priority Interventions Programme and the revised Management Plan so that significant progress can be achieved in the implementation of the corrective measures and the eventual removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger. 

Decision

  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

36COM7A.33
Link to the decision

The World Heritage Committee,

1.   Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7A,

2.   Recalling Decision 35 COM 7A.32, adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3.   Acknowledges the information provided by the State Party on the implementation of identified corrective measures, and urges it to continue its efforts to secure the required resources for their full implementation;

4.   Notes that the International Expert Meeting is scheduled for October 2012, and requests the State Party to take this opportunity to develop a draft Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, corrective measures, timeframe and its related financial estimation of costs, as well as a clear course of action to guide the property’s conservation strategy, to be submitted as part of the outcomes of the meeting, to be reviewed by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session in 2013;

5.   Also requests the State Party to ensure that an adequate balance is achieved in the allocation of resources for visitation purposes and for conservation programmes, critical to maintaining the property’s integrity;

6.   Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies by October 2012, a copy of the Management Plan for the property;

7.   Moreover requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2013, 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 37th session in 2013;

8.   Decides to retain Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Chile) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

36COM8C.2
Link to the decision

The World Heritage Committee,

1.   Following the examination of the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-12/36.COM/7A and WHC-12/36.COM/7A.Add),

2.   Decides to maintain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

    • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 36 COM 7A.25)
    • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 36 COM 7A.26)
    • Belize, Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Decision 36 COM 7A.15)
    • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.1)
    • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 36 COM 7A.33)
    • Colombia, Los Katíos National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.16)
    • Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.2)
    • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 36 COM 7A.3)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.4)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.5)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.6)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.7)
    • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 36 COM 7A.8)
    • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 36 COM 7A.20)
    • Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.9)
    • Georgia, Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery (Decision 36 COM 7A.30)
    • Georgia, Historical Monuments of Mtskheta (Decision 36 COM 7A.31)
    • Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 36 COM 7A.17)
    • Indonesia, Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Decision 36 COM 7A.13)
    • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 36 COM 7A.21)
    • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 36 COM 7A.22)
    • Islamic Republic of Iran, Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Decision 36 COM 7A.27)
    • Jerusalem, Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Decision 36 COM 7A.23.I)
    • Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 36 COM 7A.10)
    • Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 36 COM 7A.11)
    • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 36 COM 7A.34)
    • Senegal, Niokolo-Koba National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.12)
    • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 36 COM 7A.32)
    • United Rep. of Tanzania, Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (Decision 36 COM 7A.19)
    • Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 36 COM 7A.18)
    • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 36 COM 7A.14)
    • Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 36 COM 7A.35)
    • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 36 COM 7A.24)
Draft Decision: 36 COM 7A.33

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-12/36.COM/7A,

2. Recalling Decision 35 COM 7A.32, adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3. Acknowledges the information provided by the State Party on the implementation of identified corrective measures, and urges it to continue its efforts to secure the required resources for their full implementation;

4. Notes that the International Expert Meeting is scheduled for October 2012, and requests the State Party to take this opportunity to develop a draft Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger, corrective measures, timeframe and its related financial estimation of costs, as well as a clear course of action to guide the property’s conservation strategy, to be submitted as part of the outcomes of the meeting, to be reviewed by the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session in 2013;

5. Also requests the State Party to ensure that an adequate balance is achieved in the allocation of resources for visitation purposes and for conservation programmes, critical to maintaining the property’s integrity;

6. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies by October 2012, a copy of the Management Plan for the property;

7. Moreover requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2013, 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 37th session in 2013;

8. Decides to retain Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Chile) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works
State Party:
Chile
Date of Inscription: 2005
Nomination records (Year): 2004, 2011
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (ii)(iii)(iv)
Danger List: Yes
Exports
Word File
SOC Reports (year)
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
Threats*
  • Wind
  • Deliberate destruction of heritage
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Other Threats:
    a) Extremely fragile nature of the industrial buildings that were constructed using local materials such as timber for frames, corrugated iron sheets for roofs and some walls, in addition to stucco and lightweight constructionb) Lack of maintenance over the past 40 years c) Corrosion of metal cladding and dismantlement of some of the structural elements. A few buildings such as the Leaching House are liable to structural collapse if no support is givend) Very little conservation work carried out
Documents
WHC-12/36.COM/7A
Other Documents:
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC ID: 153
Inscription on the Danger List
Year: 2005
Threats to the Site:

The main issue is the extremely fragile nature of the buildings. As with most mining buildings, they were constructed using local materials and lightweight construction that functioned with regular maintenance and could be altered in response to changed circumstances. At Humberstone and Santa Laura the materials used were timber for frames, corrugated sheet for roofs and some walls, and stucco. There has been no maintenance for 40 years, and there has been damage and vandalism as well as some dismantling. The metal cladding has corroded and some of the structural elements dismantled. A few buildings, such as the Leaching house, are liable to structural collapse if no support is given.

The greatest threat is from looters searching for re-usable materials. During the time when the works were closed and still in private hands much was lost. Looters look for all sorts of memorabilia on the sites such as timber, bottles, coins and tokens. Although looting has dwindled, the Douglas Fir is much prized and, as it is now nationally protected in the USA, prices for it have risen. Timber was stolen from the Santa Laura Leaching plant in 1999.

Although the site is a virtually rain-free desert, windborne salt from the coast has an impact on the metal sheeting causing corrosion. Wind has also affected the wooden structures: those painted have been given a protective mineral coating by the salty wind whereas those unpainted have been eroded by the wind.

In summary: 

a)         Extremely fragile nature of the buildings;

b)         Lack of maintenance for 40 years;

c)         Vandalism due to looting of re-usable materials;

d)         Damage caused by the wind.


* : The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).

** : All mission reports are not always available electronically.