Download File - UNESCO World Heritage

vegetative regrowth. Aerial photography and thematic
mapping are in routine use. ‘Partnership monitoring’ with
NGOs and local residents includes the conservation of the
cultural heritage. As a result of such monitoring,
improvements have been noted in, for example, growth of
fauna, the condition of buildings and monuments and
‘Awareness-raising and a broader, more participative role
for society’.
Risk analysis:
The key threats are:
•= Urban Expansion
•= Illegal, unplanned habitation
•= Radio masts
•= Over-visiting
•= Natural disasters
These are dealt with separately:
Urban Expansion: The ever-present risk is from urban
expansion. Much of the nominated area is now officially
under control through planning constraints, but the
proposed areas are at risk from unplanned, even illegal,
habitation. Much of the Buffer Zone is outside Protected
areas and thus it is difficult to see what protection it can
offer.
Illegal, unplanned habitation: Some of the early areas of
encroachment, the favellas, now have a somewhat
picturesque character and contribute towards the culture of
the city. However the number and size of the unplanned
habitations surrounding the National Park – some 46
shanty towns, housing 180,000 people – gives rise to
concern about future pressure on the nominated areas.
Radio masts: Very large masts are already prominent on a
few key high points in the National Park.
Over-visiting: Over-visiting appears not to be a general
problem but one confined to certain localised parts of the
national Park where there are signs of excessive wear and
tear.
Natural disasters: Tropical storms occasionally cause
landslides and avalanches, and there is some danger of fire
in the Park and flooding in the Botanic Gardens.
Authenticity and integrity
Throughout, the nomination is careful to make clear that
the vegetation in the proposed areas has almost completely
changed since the 16 th century. Even the Botanical
Gardens’ 83 ha of Forest Reserve is of reconstituted parts
of the remnants of the Atlantic Forest. The nomination
states quite explicitly that the landscape of Rio is presented
to the World Heritage List ‘not as a vestige of the
[original] Atlantic forest … but rather as the authentic
product of the effort to conserve a unique tropical forest in
the heart of a metropolis.’
The key question is whether a re-created forest – seen by
many as the forerunner of other successful experiments in
forest restoration, and the creation of urban forests – can be
seen as ‘authentic’ in World Heritage terms. It is definitely
not an authentic natural forest; however it could be argued
11
that it is an authentic example of a very early landscape
restoration programme, exemplifying romantic ideals.
The nominated areas arguably possess a certain historical
and visual integrity through the way their history, siting
and use has linked them together with each other and with
the city of Rio as their focus and foreground. Physical
impacts on them, despite their situation near a huge
metropolis, have been minor. Collectively, the two islands,
the Botanical Gardens and the three parts of the National
Park provide a ‘green’ and recreational lung for the
metropolis and a hugely important defining backdrop for
the city.
Comparative evaluation
The nomination mentions other major cities interfacing
with sea and mountain only to dismiss them as valid
comparanda: Hong Kong, Cape Town and Naples simply
do not have, it is asserted, the topographical and visual
impressiveness of Rio which ‘brings together mountain,
sea and prairies’ and also ‘offers contours of extraordinary
purity and force.’ Venice is proposed for comparison, ‘the
only city that is entirely inscribed on the World Heritage
List because of its landscape’ as distinct from other cities
inscribed as historical centres.
Although Rio de Janeiro contains elements familiar in
other urban contexts, it is as a whole extraordinarily
distinctive. At its centre is a forest, probably a unique
circumstance. There seems little to be gained by forcing
comparisons with other world cities, for it is the unique
combination of natural and man-made factors which afford
Rio as a whole its distinctiveness.
Tijuca Forest contains many artificial features and also
natural features that have been modified. Overall, it aspired
to European ideas of a Romantic landscape in the earlier
19 th century. In some respects it shares characteristics with
the World Heritage cultural landscape of Sintra, west of
Lisbon. That, of course, was patronised by the Portuguese
Royal Family and fashionable circles prior to 1808.
Perhaps there might be some connection between the two,
unmentioned in the nomination..
The Rio de Janeiro Botanical Gardens Research Institute is
one of the most prestigious such institutions in the world.
Outstanding universal value
General statement:
The areas comprising the nomination make up the dramatic
‘natural’ backdrop to Rio.
The forest, possibly the largest urban forest in the world,
represents an early (beginning in 1861) and significant
example of ecological restoration through reforestation, for
Latin America and for the wider Western Hemisphere.
This nominated landscape is an excellent example of
planning and management of the periphery of a developing
urban area, each influencing the other over time.
The botanical garden, established by the Portuguese Court
(then resident in Brazil) in 1809, contributes to the
scholarly study of the region’s forested ecosystem, is
renowned for its plant collections, is itself an important
example of landscape planning with significant cultural