Download File - UNESCO World Heritage

attributes, and historically provided the plants for
reforestation in the 19 th century.
The Sugar-Loaf mountain and the Corcovado statue have
become icons representing the city of Rio – as part of the
wider green setting of the city.
Overall the combined elements are perceived to have
outstanding beauty and, through their association with the
city, give it added significance.
As is said in the nomination, Rio is a ‘union of city, sea
and mountain.’ However the nomination includes only
mountain, with no city and only views of the sea. How
then should the cultural qualities of this landscape be
evaluated?
Apart from the Botanical Gardens, the nominated areas
could be said principally to have natural history interest,
although they demonstrate significant evidence for human
influence and intervention. The nomination argues that the
forest itself is a cultural resource, a legacy of historical
events and cultural developments that also has natural
value. As the nomination clearly states ‘…it is not as a
vestige of the Atlantic forest that the landscape of Rio is
presented to the World Heritage List, but rather as the
authentic product of the effort to conserve a unique tropical
forest in the heart of a metropolis.’
As one of the contributors notes, it was ‘…the landscapers,
botanists, foresters, authorities and all the other agents who
helped shape what we identify physically and culturally as
the forest.’ The forest was ‘built’ when it was reforested in
the mid 19 th century just as the botanical gardens were
designed; thus these two resources are natural resources
with cultural value – connected to the restoration of natural
aspects.
The nominated areas do also have high intangible
significance, through their association with millions of
people living in the city. The residents value highly their
cultural qualities, which are connected to their perceived
beauty, their recreational opportunities and the way they
provide Rio with a sense of identity. And as icons for Rio,
they also could be said to have a wider universal value.
The key question, therefore, is whether the ‘natural’
backdrop to Rio can have high cultural qualities associated
with early landscape gardening and ecological restoration,
with intellectual and plant collections at the Botanical
Gardens and with the continuing perceptions of beauty and
usefulness attributed by the residents of the city. Or can the
‘natural’ backdrop only be evaluated according to tangible
natural criteria.
It is here argued that the ‘natural’ backdrop is far more
significant for its cultural qualities than for its natural
qualities.
Evaluation of criteria:
The site is nominated under criteria ii, iv and iv. However
iv is wrongly quoted; iii is meant.
Criterion ii: There clearly is a strong argument that Rio de
Janeiro and its environs demonstrate ‘an important
interchange of human values … in terms of this
nomination as it stands, solely ‘landscape design’.
Because the city, or significant parts of it, is excluded,
other ‘developments’, as in town planning, are by
definition excluded.
12
The ‘natural’ areas were in fact designed as part of the
backdrop to the city, to provide recreation, to solve
environmental problems and to create something of beauty.
The development of the Tiujuca national park, particularly
in the light of the early date for these approaches, can be
seen to have played a significant part in the development of
urban forests and urban design, which had a significant
influence in Latin America and elsewhere.
The nomination does not however justify this last point:
how this site was influential or in some way sets a standard
or direction that was followed in other locations in the
Americas or elsewhere.
Looking specifically at the Botanical Gardens, these were
of undoubted significance in introducing and developing
an idiosyncratic European type of garden into the emerging
Latin America; and they are still of universal renown in
terms of their research and scientific prowess.
Criterion iii: The nomination makes the argument that “the
formation of the Rio landscape is the most remarkable
example of the way in which the history of Brazil was built
by means of a difficult confrontation between the
harshness of tropical nature and the demands of a modern
society balanced between the influences of European
models and American realities, between the temptation to
destroy the forest (the coffee culture, urban pressure) and
the new desire to protect it (preservation of fountainheads,
climatic equilibrium of the city, social valorisation of the
environment)’.
This argument appears to provide more support for
criterion ii (above) rather than criterion iii.
Criterion vi: The nomination states: ‘Cocovado, with its
statue of Christ, and Sugar Loaf, have become the symbols
of Brazil known throughout the whole world.’
The question is whether these two features, one man-made
and specific to a world religion, the other natural, together
are of outstanding universal significance.’ The nomination
does not justify their universal significance.
It might have been more compelling to note that the entire
nominated area is well known, and its dramatic scenic
quality has provided inspiration for many forms of art,
literature, poetry, and music. Thus it is the whole ensemble
that has in effect become linked with the identity of Rio.
It is undoubtedly the case that images of Rio, which show
the bay, Sugar Loaf and the statue of Christ have a high
worldwide recognition factor, and have had wide currency
for a long time: images often made out of butterfly wings
were popular decoration on treen souvenirs in Europe from
the middle of the 19 th century. Such high recognition
factors can be either positive or negative: in the case of
Rio, the image that was projected, and still is projected, is
one of a staggeringly beautiful location for one of the
world’s biggest cities.
Such high recognition of the physical form of Rio’s
landscape setting must give it a certain universal value.