World Heritage 41 COM WHC/17/41.COM/INF.8B4 Krakow, 3 July 2017 Original: English / French UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION CONVENTION CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CULTURAL AND NATURAL HERITAGE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE Forty-first session Krakow, Poland 2 - 12 July 2017 Item 8 of the Provisional Agenda: Establishment of the World Heritage List and of the List of World Heritage in Danger INF.8B4: Factual errors letters SUMMARY This document contains the factual errors notifications received from States Parties by 16 June 2017 in compliance with paragraph 150 of the Operational Guidelines. Alphabetical list by State Party of notifications of factual errors in the evaluation reports of the Advisory Bodies relating to nominations to be examined at the 41st session of the World Heritage Committee (Krakow, Poland, 2 - 12 July 2017) State Party World Heritage nomination ID No. Recommen. Pp NATURAL SITES Albania / Austria / Belgium / Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions 1133 Ter D 2 Bulgaria / Croatia / Italy / of Europe Romania / Slovenia / Spain / Ukraine Benin / Burkina Faso W – Arly – Pendjari Complex 749 Bis OK 11 Ghana Mole National Park 1514 N 16 Mongolia / Russian Landscapes of Dauria 1448 Rev I 34 Federation MIXED SITES Mexico Tehuacán-Cuicatlán Valley: originary habitat of 1534 D / D 36 Mesoamerica CULTURAL SITES Angola Historical Centre of Mbanza Kongo 1511 I 42 Azerbaijan Historic Centre of Sheki with the Khan’s Palace 1549 N 44 China Kulangsu: a historic international settlement 1541 I 49 Denmark Kujataa – a subarctic farming landscape in Greenland 1536 R 51 Eritrea Asmara: Africa’s Modernist City 1550 I 54 Georgia Gelati Monastery 710 Bis OK 67 Germany Caves with the oldest Ice Age art 1527 I 74 Germany The Bauhaus and its sites in Weimar, Dessau and Bernau 729 Bis OK 78 Germany Naumburg Cathedral and the High Medieval Cultural 1470 Rev N 79 Landscape of the Rivers Saale and Unstrut India Historic City of Ahmadabad 1551 D 81 Iran (Islamic Republic of) Historic City of Yazd 1544 D 83 Japan Sacred Island of Okinoshima and Associated Sites in the 1535 I 89 Munakata Region Jordan As-Salt Eclectic Architecture (1865-1925), Origins and 689 Rev N 95 Evolution of an Architectural Language in the Levant Poland Tarnowskie Góry Lead-Silver-Zinc Mine and its 1539 D 96 Underground Water Management System South Africa ǂKhomani Cultural Landscape 1545 D 114 Turkey Aphrodisias 1519 D 123 United Arab Emirates Khor Dubai, a Traditional Merchants’ Harbour 1458 Rev N 126 United Kingdom of Great The English Lake District 422 Rev I 132 Britain and Northern Ireland Minor boundary modifications State Party World Heritage nomination ID No. Recommen. Pp Netherlands Defence Line of Amsterdam 759 Bis N 136 Factual errors notifications are presented in the language in which they have been submitted by the State Party Factual errors letters WHC/17/41.COM/INF.8B4 p. 1 ONIO MU M ND RI T IA A L • P • W L O A I R FORM FOR THE SUBMISSION OF D L D N H O E M R I E T IN AG O E • PATRIM FACTUAL ERRORS IN United Nations World Heritage THE ADVISORY BODIES EVALUATIONS Cultural Organization Convention (in compliance with Paragraph 150 of the Operational Guidelines) STATE(S) PARTY(IES): Albania / Austria / Belgium / Bulgaria / Croatia / Italy / Romania / Slovenia / Spain / Ukraine EVALUATION OF THE NOMINATION OF THE SITE: Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe RELEVANT ADVISORY BODY’S EVALUATION: IUCN Page, column, Sentence including the Proposed correction by the Comment (if any) by the line of the factual error State Party Advisory Body and/or the Advisory Body (the factual error should be World Heritage Centre Evaluation highlighted in bold) P57/left/l13 Issues raised included the The average size of component parts Not a factual error conceptual rationale for the is the same as the one of the extension This is describing the nature of transnational extension and a that was inscribed in 2011. issues raised by IUCN trend in this nomination toward The calculation in the IUCN following its first Panel. smaller, less viable components Evaluation neglects that the small and buffer zones. component parts are grouped in The IUCN analysis is factually clusters which are ecologically linked correct, and it is based on an by forest ecosystems within the buffer assessment of the differences zones. From the ecologically between the component parts functional perspective, the component proposed for inscription, which parts within one cluster should be are the components which carry summed up, which leads to a mean OUV. Buffer zones serve to size of component parts/clusters of protect, but do not form part of 1824 ha. The area of buffer areas in the property so it is not relation to the component parts has appropriate to count them in the been significantly increased. For comparison of areas in the way details, see below (remark on that is being suggested. All P65/left/55 and p65/right/l05). necessary elements of OUV should be included within the nominated property – consistent with paragraphs 88 and 94 of the Operational Guidelines. p60/left/17 within the border zone between within the border zone between Clarification Albania and Yougoslavia Albania and former Yougoslavia The context of this remark in the IUCN report relates to the history of the area in current and previous configurations of nations. IUCN fully accepts this proposed changed text to reflect the current situation. p60/left/4 and represent the most natural and represent the most natural parts Difference of opinion parts of a peri-urban forest (…) of a peri-urban forest (…) which are which is now strictly protected strictly protected It is true that all the components in Belgium are strictly protected; however this statement expresses IUCN’s Factual errors letters WHC/17/41.COM/INF.8B4 p. 2 understanding that some parts of this forest have been protected since the 1850s but some other areas have been subject to much more recent protection decrees (2010 and 2016). p60/left/10 Beech trees in the Sonian Forest Beech trees have always been Not a factual error were favoured through human present in the Sonian Forest. The statement “…were intervention, particularly See:Scientific references and through the work of the young favoured…” clearly implies the background in the annex below understanding that beech was Austrian landscape architect ‘comments of Belgian State Party’. Joachim Zinner (…) already present. The proposed amendment is not accepted. Not a factual error cathedral trees "particularly …cathedral trees". Difference of opinion Scientific research has destroyed the p61/left/5 myth about the planting on a IUCN is noting the fact that massive scale and about Zinner’s there is history of forest practice impact in particular. See:Scientific which favoured beech trees in references and background in the the Sonian Forest and there is a annex below ‘comments of Belgian high likelihood that some of the State Party’. monumental trees (cathedral trees) were planted. Whilst the scale of impact can be debated the fact of this intervention clearly is not compatible with any definition of these areas as being “Primeval”. p61/left/7 Whilst the forests within the The nominated components are Not a factual error nominated property are now forest reserves and the most Re-iterates arguments/ the most undisturbed parts of the undisturbed parts of the Sonian Sonian system, it is highly likely justification put forward in forest; they host one of the largest the nomination dossier that that some of the cathedral trees lists of species related to Atlantic were planted in the past. have been fully considered by Beech Forests. the Advisory Bodies There are references to the There is no scientific evidence for cathedral trees in the Sonian the assumption that the cathedral Forests resulting from human trees in the components were intervention. IUCN does not planted, nor is it essential for the accept that this constitutes a appreciation of the ecological value natural forest development and of the components. Contrary to the succession process in this case, assessment of the components in and is not compatible with any other State Parties, information on definition of “Primeval Forest”. the species was missing. See: The maintenance of species diversity in a forest with Scientific references and significant human role in past background in the annex below and present management, and ‘comments of Belgian State Party’. the current concerns on integrity are not compatible with recognition under natural criteria. p61/left/l09 The Sonian Forest is the northern The Sonian Forest is the northernmost Not a factual error most extent of this serial extent of this serial transnational transnational extension and the extension and represents Atlantic Difference of opinion nomination proposes it to represent Beech Forest. The European IUCN’s position on these Atlantic Beech Forest; however screening process conducted by the components is clearly stated in this is a large BFR with natural scientific panel of Beech Forest the nomination, and is further forested areas in other countries. Specialists has come to the conclusion noted above. that there are NO large natural beech The Sonian Forest is (…), but is forests left in the Atlantic region . not, in IUCN’s view, a result of Factual errors letters WHC/17/41.COM/INF.8B4 p. 3 natural ecological processes. Neither in UK nor in FR sites have been suitable for extension. IUCN considers these forests are Furthermore, the original forest not the result of natural reserve of Fontainebleau is far smaller ecological processes and (100 ha) than the Sonian one – evolution. although it was recently enlarged, the New Forest in UK shows much more intensive human influence (grazing, coppicing, etc.).