Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Routes of Santiago de Compostela: Camino Francés and Routes of Northern Spain

Spain
Factors affecting the property in 2005*
  • Water infrastructure
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Enlargement of the Yesa Dam flooding a part of the Route;

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2005
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2005**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2005

The State Party confirmed the information provided last year to reduce the dimensions of the reservoir.  The compromise solution put forward for the Yesa Dam foresees reducing the affected stretch of the Route to a total of 4.2 km (instead of 9.4 km) - from 7.1 km to 3.4 km for the southern part and from 2.3 km to 800m for the northern part.  This solution would thus avoid the flooding of the main heritage elements associated with the Route, that are the protected monuments of Sigüés and Ruesta.  Alternative routes north and south of the reservoir are also proposed.

When this project was discussed at the 28th session of the Committee (Suzhou, 2004), the State Party had already accepted the arguments put forward by ICOMOS and proposed the compromise set out above.  The full details of this proposal, with numerous maps and photographs have now been studied by ICOMOS.  Recognizing the social significance of the Yesa Dam for the region and the minimal loss of heritage significance that will now ensue, ICOMOS accepts the compromise solution as presented.  That part of the original Route which will be submerged by the heightening of the Dam will be preserved in a similar way to the section now beneath the concrete runway of the airport of Santiago de Compostela, which has already been accepted as part of the World Heritage property. 

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2005
29 COM 7B.85
Route of Santiago de Compostela (Spain)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev,

2. Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15B.79, adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

3. Thanks the State Party of Spain for having submitted the updated report on the project of the Yesa Dam;

4. Regrets, however, that the documents have only been provided in Spanish, and not in one of the working languages of the Convention (English or French),

5. Requests the State Party to report to the Committee, in conformity with the Operational Guidelines (paragraph 172) if any changes are made to the project as it was presented at this session;

6. Also requests the State Party to keep the World Heritage Centre informed on the final plans in the framework of the "National Water Programme".

Draft Decision: 29 COM 7B.85

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev,

2.  Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15B.79, adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

3.  Thanks the State Party for having submitted the updated report on the project of the Yesa Dam,

4.  Regretting, however, that the documents have only been provided in Spanish, and not in one of the working languages of the Convention (English or French),

5.  Requests the State Party to report to the Committee according to Article 172 of the new Operational Guidelines, if any changes are made to the project as it was presented at this session;

6.  Further requests the State Party to keep the World Heritage Centre informed on the final plans in the framework of the “National Water Programme”.

Report year: 2005
Spain
Date of Inscription: 1993
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (ii)(iv)(vi)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 29COM (2005)
Exports

* : 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.


top