Administration
Budget
Capacity Building
Communication
Community
Conservation
Credibility of the World Heritage ...
Inscriptions on the World Heritage ...
International Assistance
List of World Heritage in Danger
Operational Guidelines
Outstanding Universal Value
Partnerships
Periodic Reporting
Reinforced Monitoring
Reports
Tentative Lists
Working methods and tools
World Heritage Convention








2025 25 GA
2025 47 COM
2024 46 COM
2023 24 GA
2023 45 COM
2023 18 EXT.COM
2022 17 EXT.COM
2021 16 EXT.COM
2021 23 GA
2021 44 COM
2021 15 EXT.COM
2020 14 EXT.COM
2019 13 EXT.COM
2019 22 GA
2019 43 COM
2018 42 COM
2017 12 EXT.COM
2017 21 GA
2017 41 COM
2016 40 COM
2015 11 EXT.COM
2015 20 GA
2015 39 COM
2014 1 EXT.GA
2014 38 COM
2013 19 GA
2013 37 COM
2012 36 COM
2011 10 EXT.COM
2011 18 GA
2011 35 COM
2010 34 COM
2010 9 EXT.COM
2009 17 GA
2009 33 COM
2008 32 COM
2007 16 GA
2007 8 EXT.COM
2007 31 COM
2006 30 COM
2005 15 GA
2005 29 COM
2005 29 BUR
2004 7 EXT.COM
2004 7 EXT.BUR
2004 28 COM
2004 28 BUR
2003 14 GA
2003 27 COM
2003 27 BUR
2003 6 EXT.COM
2002 26 COM
2002 26 BUR
2001 25 COM
2001 25 EXT.BUR
2001 5 EXT.COM
2001 13 GA
2001 25 BUR
2000 24 COM
2000 24 EXT.BUR
2000 24 BUR(SPE)
2000 24 BUR
1999 23 COM
1999 23 EXT.BUR
1999 4 EXT.COM
1999 12 GA
1999 3 EXT.COM
1999 23 BUR
1998 22 COM
1998 22 EXT.BUR
1998 22 BUR
1997 21 COM
1997 21 EXT.BUR
1997 2 EXT.COM
1997 11 GA
1997 21 BUR
1996 20 COM
1996 20 EXT.BUR
1996 20 BUR
1995 19 COM
1995 19 EXT.BUR
1995 10 GA
1995 19 BUR
1994 18 COM
1994 18 EXT.BUR
1994 18 BUR
1993 17 COM
1993 17 EXT.BUR
1993 9 GA
1993 17 BUR
1992 16 COM
1992 16 BUR
1991 15 COM
1991 8 GA
1991 15 BUR
1990 14 COM
1990 14 BUR
1989 13 COM
1989 7 GA
1989 13 BUR
1988 12 COM
1988 12 BUR
1987 11 COM
1987 6 GA
1987 11 BUR
1986 10 COM
1986 10 BUR
1985 9 COM
1985 5 GA
1985 9 BUR
1984 8 COM
1984 8 BUR
1983 7 COM
1983 4 GA
1983 7 BUR
1982 6 COM
1982 6 BUR
1981 5 COM
1981 1 EXT.COM
1981 5 BUR
1980 3 GA
1980 4 COM
1980 4 BUR
1979 3 COM
1979 3 BUR
1979 2 BUR
1978 2 GA
1978 2 COM
1978 1 BUR
1977 1 COM
1976 1 GA

Decision 37 COM 7B.85
Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey) (C 356)

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decision 36 COM 7B.89 , adopted at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012),

3.  Take notes of the results of the 2012 joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission and requests the State Party to implement its recommendations and to duly proceed with the annual review of the Management Plan;

4.  Acknowledges the commitment of the State Party to halt work on the Golden Horn Bridge for a year in order to consider ways of further improving its design and mitigating its intrusion into the historic landscape, but notes that although amendments have refined the original design, the bridge will still impact adversely on views of the Historic Peninsula and on the ability of the property to convey certain aspects of its Outstanding Universal Value;

5.  Recognises the logic and benefits of a Bosphorus road tunnel, but also notes that the currently preferred shorter 5.4 km tunnel option, emerging partway along the southern shore of the Historic Peninsula with a wide 8-13 lane approach road, would have a highly significant, negative impact on the Sea Walls, the Marble Tower, and the overall relationship between the Historic Peninsula and the sea;

6.  Urges the State Party to undertake multi-disciplinary studies (technical, environmental, social, cultural and economic) as a basis for considering the extension of the tunnel beyond the Land Walls and to remove an intersection at Yenikapı in order to ensure that the impacts on the Historic Peninsula are both limited and largely positive; and to duly take all options into consideration when finalising the Heritage Impact Assessment, and submit this to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies before any irreversible decision or commitment is made;

7.  Notes with concern that the Yenikapı project for reclaiming a large area of land (58 hectares) to the south-west of the Historic Peninsula and thus create a recreation area for up to a million people, was started before a Heritage Impact Assessment had been undertaken, and without any advance notification being provided to the World Heritage Committee; and also requests that the State Party finalise the Heritage Impact Assessment, which should include the potential impact of such large gatherings on the environment and infrastructure of the peninsula as a whole, and submit it as soon as possible to the World Heritage Committee for review by the Advisory bodies;

8.  Also notes with concern the mission’s opinion that a crisis point has been reached for the remaining Ottoman timber buildings, and further requests the State Party to consider a rapid assessment of Ottoman buildings at risk, to reconsider renewal area schemes, to undertake first-aid works in order to slow down the rate of decay and loss, and, if possible, to reinstate grants allowing private owners to repair their buildings;

9.  Welcomes that height restrictions have been put in place by the State Party in a timely manner to protect the silhouette of the Historic Peninsula;

10.  Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2015 , 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 39th session in 2015.

Decision Code
37 COM 7B.85
Themes
Conservation, Outstanding Universal Value
States Parties 1
Year
2013
Keywords
HIA
State of conservation reports
2013 Historic Areas of Istanbul
Documents
WHC-13/37.COM/20
Decisions Adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th Session (Phnom Penh, 2013)
Context of Decision
WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add
Other Documents (1)
Report on the Joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS Reactif Monitoring Mission to the Historic Areas of Istanbul, 19-23 November 2012