State of Conservation (SOC)
Island of Mozambique (1997)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Total Amount Ap proved:74,900USD
|1996||Finalisation of an integral conservation plan for Island of ...||19,900 USD|
|1995||2 high-level missions on the conservation and development of the ...||20,000 USD|
|1994||Financial contribution to repairs for the roofs of Sao Paulo ...||35,000 USD|
July 1995: UNESCO expert mission
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Need for a detailed programme for the recuperation / rehabilitation of the island
- Storm in 1994
- Lack of funding
- Precarious state of conservation of the stone
- Solid waste collection
- Presence of squatters in the Stone City
Current conservation issues
At the nineteenth session of the World Heritage Committee (1995), the Committee was informed that an "Integrated Rehabilitation Programme” had been defined and that the creation of a funds-in-trust was envisaged to finance the programme. Subsequently, in July 1996, under assistance of the World Heritage Fund, a comprehensive and detailed report “Ilha de Mozambique - an Agenda for Sustainable Human Development and Integral Conservation” was prepared, and its action plan foresees:
a) establishing a project authority jointly between the Government and the United Nations system through UNESCO, with UNDP and multi-donor contributions;
b) establishing a national Steering Committee under the leadership of a minister which the Government considers appropriate (it could be the Prime Minister and the Minister of Culture) working together with the Ministries and their respective technicians of Public Works, the Environment, Tourism, Housing and other sectors involved in privatisation and investment;
c) setting up a Project Office on the Island
In July 1997, the WHC was informed by the UNESCO Office in Maputo that the Government of Mozambique has responded positively to the report. Consequently, a revised version of the 1996 report - "A Programme for Sustainable Human Development and Integral Conservation", was prepared at the request of the authorities of Mozambique.
The approach of a joint integrated rehabilitation which has been adopted will ensure
that the Island’s heritage will be preserved in a sustainable manner. The comprehensive social and economic programme for the Island has the following aims:
a) Rehabilitation of the human settlement: (infrastructure, education, health);
b) An overall cultural component:
* cultural tourism
* handicrafts programme
* centres for artists and creative arts
* sub-marine archaeology
* enhancement of national heritage legislation;
c) Physical restoration of the cultural heritage.
On 14 July 1997, UNDP New York, established a Trust Fund for the Ilha of Mozambique and has already allocated US$ 300,000, decentralized to the UNESCO Office in Maputo. The Programme, a copy of which was circulated to potential donors in Maputo, has generated considerable interest. The UNESCO Office in Maputo has requested the World Heritage Centre's co-operation for the preparation of a donors' meeting in Maputo. The meeting is expected to take place in 1998. In addition, the Director-General of UNESCO launched on the 3 September 1997, during his visit to Mozambique, an appeal to the international community for the support of the rehabilitation of the Island.
The conservation and restoration component shall be supervised by the World Heritage Centre which has already provided an Associate Expert, an architect, for two years, as of September 1997.
In addition, training activities foreseen in the rehabilitation programme for the Ilha could be provided from the World Heritage Fund if a request is prepared. It is clear that the World Heritage Centre has neither the mandate nor the capability to implement the Programme approved by the authorities of Mozambique.
Analysis and Conclusion
Link to the decision
VII.55 The Committee noted the decisions of the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau on the following cultural properties as reflected in the report of the Bureau session, Working Documents WHC-97/CONF.208/4B Section III.C.c):
Joya de Ceren Archaeological Site (El Salvador)
Le Canal du Midi (France)
Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (France)
Ashanti Traditional Buildings (Ghana)
Maya Site of Copan (Honduras)
Agra Fort, Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri (India)
Quseir Amra (Jordan)
Town of Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic)
Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan (Mexico)
Ilha de Mozambique (Mozambique)
Baroque Churches of the Philippines (Philippines)
Old Town of Segovia and its Aqueduct (Spain)
Cultural World Heritage sites in Sri Lanka
Ancient City of Damascus (Syrian Arab Republic)
Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)
Itchan Kala, Historic Centre of Bukhara (Uzbekistan)
Shibam and Zabid (Yemen).
The Bureau may wish to adopt the following text and transmit it to the Committee for noting:
(i) congratulates the Mozambique authorities for having made a commitment for the implementation of the Programme for Sustainable Human Development and Integral Conservation of the Ilha de Mozambique,
(ii) notes that assistance from the World Heritage Fund has enabled the preparation of a comprehensive programme which will allow the Mozambique authorities to better conserve, preserve and present the heritage of the Ilha,
(iii) requests the World Heritage Centre to oversee the conservation component of the programme, and
(iv) urges the UNESCO Office in Maputo to co-ordinate activities with donors and the Culture Sector in order to raise additional funds and ensure the full implementation of the Programme."
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC Reports2014 2012 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2000 1999 1998 1997 1995 1994 1993
Detailed List of SOC reports
Precarious state of conservation of the stone
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”).