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

Canal du Midi

France
Factors affecting the property in 1997*
  • Solid waste
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1997
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 1997
A French non-governmental organization transmitted a report to the Secretariat concerning the construction of a waste dump for the re-use of organic waste to be located in the close vicinity of the World Heritage site. ICOMOS undertook a mission to assess the impact and concluded that although the impact assessment study undertaken by the French authorities had not been completed the industrial complex is not likely to have a negative impact on the World Heritage site. The Bureau took note of the ICOMOS report on the construction of the plant for reuse of organic waste. It recommended that once the funding be made available, the competent French authorities verify in the mandatory impact assessment study that the necessary measures are foreseen to avoid any of the negative effects that might be identified in the study.
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1997

In February 1997 the French organisation "Comité des riverains de la Zone industrielle en Tourre-Bagatelle" from Castelnaudary, submitted a report to the Secretariat on the construction of a waste dump for the transformation and re-use of waste in the vicinity of the Canal. This waste comprises the residue (mud) of urban waste purification, manure, slaughterhouse waste as well as bio-degradable industrial waste (carton).

In response to this report, ICOMOS undertook a mission to Castelnaudary in April 1997. The ICOMOS mission report submitted to the World Heritage Centre examined the location of the site which is foreseen for this industrial complex, approximately 700m from the Canal du Midi and 1600m distance from the locks of Saint-Roche. Having examined in detail the possible impact of this plant, in close discussion with the relevant authorities, ICOMOS concluded that it poses no threats to the World Heritage site and that the risk of pollution vis-à-vis the Canal du Midi is minor.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1997
21 COM VII.C.55
Reports on the state of conservation of cultural properties noted by the Committee

VII.55 The Committee noted the decisions of the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau on the following cultural properties as reflected in the report of the Bureau session, Working Documents WHC-97/CONF.208/4B Section III.C.c):

Joya de Ceren Archaeological Site (El Salvador)

Le Canal du Midi (France)

Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (France)

Ashanti Traditional Buildings (Ghana)

Maya Site of Copan (Honduras)

Agra Fort, Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri (India)

Quseir Amra (Jordan)

Town of Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic)

Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan (Mexico)

Ilha de Mozambique (Mozambique)

Moenjodaro (Pakistan)

Baroque Churches of the Philippines (Philippines)

Old Town of Segovia and its Aqueduct (Spain)

Cultural World Heritage sites in Sri Lanka

Ancient City of Damascus (Syrian Arab Republic)

Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)

Itchan Kala, Historic Centre of Bukhara (Uzbekistan)

Shibam and Zabid (Yemen).

The Bureau may wish to adopt the following text and transmit it to the Committee for noting:

"The Bureau takes note of the ICOMOS report concerning the waste dump construction. It recommends that the French authorities observe closely the impact of the industrial site in order to avoid any negative impact on the World Heritage site and to consider the definition of a buffer zone".

Report year: 1997
France
Date of Inscription: 1996
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(ii)(iv)(vi)
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