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

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x

Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca

Malaysia
Factors affecting the property in 2013*
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Approvals for inappropriate buildings in and around the property (issue resolved) 

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2013
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2013**

April 2009: Joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission. 

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2013

Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Malaysia) (C1223bis)On 17 January 2013, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report which provides information on progress made in the implementation of Decision 35 COM7B.73 adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011).

 

The State Party reports that it has further developed the detailed Conservation Guidelines for the two cities; has amended the draft Special Area Plans (SAPs) that now stress the importance of new development not detracting from the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property, and require Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) for all new development. The SAPs will be formally adopted by summer 2013 when they will provide the statutory measures in the Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for both cities and their buffer zones. The State Party confirms that no development project higher than 18m in either the city or its buffer zone will be approved before the adoption of the SAPs. With regard to a specific timetable for achieving a reinforced system of management for the property, the State Party informs that the proposed World Heritage Office has now been set up to oversee management of the property, while details of the implementation of the management system are provided in the CMP and SAPs. The State Party has also submitted a completed HIA of the Swiftlet industry (June 2012). This thorough report finds that the industry is impacting severely upon the fabric of historic buildings. In accordance with this, Melaka and George Town have agreed to comply with the draft Special Area Plans which define the industry as a non-permitted activity within the property and buffer zones, and Action Plans for eradication (2011-2012) and enforcement (January to December 2013) have been adopted. Consequently, all Swiftlet farming within the property and buffer zones should be removed by December 2013. 

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2013

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider that the recent concerns of the World Heritage Committee in relation to the protection and management of the property are being addressed by the State Party. They therefore are of the view that no further reporting to the World Heritage Committee is currently required. However, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies recommend that the State Party monitor periodically the state of conservation of the property, in particular to ensure that the Special Areas Plans emphasise the requirement for Heritage Impact Assessments on all infill and replacement development so that the character of the townscape will not be adversely affected, before any existing buildings are replaced or open spaces developed and effectively monitor the timetable for reinforcing the management system to ensure its effective implementation at the property. 

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2013
37 COM 7B.103
Omnibus Decision

 World Heritage Committee,

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

2.  Recalling Decisions 34 COM 8B.6, 35 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.63, 35 COM 7B.67, 35 COM 7B.68, 35 COM 7B.69, 35 COM 7B.73, 35 COM 7B.88, 35 COM 7B.94, 35 COM 7B.98, 35 COM 7B.102, 35 COM 7B.106, 35 COM 7B.109, 35 COM 7B.122, 35 COM 7B.127, 35 COM 7B.128, 35 COM 7B.131 and 35 COM 7B.133 , adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively,

3.  Takes note with satisfaction  of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties :

  • Old Town of Lijiang (China)
  • Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)
  • San Augustin Arhcaeological Park (Colombia)
  • Historic Centre of Český Krumlov (Czech Republic)
  • Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape (Hungary)
  • Taj Mahal (India)
  • Agra Fort (India)
  • Fatehpur Sikri (India)
  • Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park (India)
  • Prambanan Temple Compounds (Indonesia)
  • Monte San Giorgio (Italy / Switzerland)
  • Vilnius Historic centre (Lithuania)
  • Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Malaysia)
  • Historic centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco (Mexico)
  • Camino real de Tierra Adentro (Mexico)
  • Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)
  • City of Cuzco (Peru)
  • Churches of Moldavia (Romania)
  • Ensemble of the Ferrapontov Monastery (Russian Federation)
  • Island of Gorée (Senegal)
  • Works of Antoni Gaudi (Spain)

4.  Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;

5.  Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project which may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible commitments are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines .

Draft Decision:  37 COM 7B.103

The World Heritage Committee,

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

2.  Recalling Decisions 34 COM 8B.6, 35 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.63, 35 COM 7B.67, 35 COM 7B.68, 35 COM 7B.69, 35 COM 7B.73, 35 COM 7B.88, 35 COM 7B.94, 35 COM 7B.98, 35 COM 7B.102, 35 COM 7B.106, 35 COM 7B.109, 35 COM 7B.122, 35 COM 7B.127, 35 COM 7B.128, 35 COM 7B.131 and 35 COM 7B.133,adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively,

3.  Takes note with satisfaction of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties :

·  Old Town of Lijiang (China)

·  Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)

·  San Augustin Arhcaeological Park (Colombia)

·  Historic Centre of Český Krumlov (Czech Republic)

·  Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape (Hungary)

·  Taj Mahal (India)

·  Agra Fort (India)

·  Fatehpur Sikri (India)

·  Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park (India)

·  Prambanan Temple Compounds (Indonesia)

·  Monte San Giorgio (Italy / Switzerland)

·  Vilnius Historic centre (Lithuania)

·  Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Malaysia)

·  Historic centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco (Mexico)

·  Camino real de Tierra Adentro (Mexico)

·  Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)

·  City of Cuzco (Peru)

·  Churches of Moldavia (Romania)

·  Ensemble of the Ferrapontov Monastery (Russian Federation)

·  Island of Gorée (Senegal)

·  Works of Antoni Gaudi (Spain)

4.  Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;

5.  Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project that may negatively impact the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible commitments are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.

 

Report year: 2013
Malaysia
Date of Inscription: 2008
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (ii)(iii)(iv)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 37COM (2013)
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