Year of inscription on the World Heritage List
Island of Mozambique: 1991
Island of Mozambique: (iv)(vi)
Previous Committee Decisions:
See page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/475
See page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/475
Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger
Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger
Corrective measures identified
Requests Approved: 0
Total Amount Approved: 209,880USD
|2009||Structural repair and reconstruction of collapsed defensive walls and foundations of the Saint Sebastian Fortress in Island of Mozambique||75,000 USD|
|2001||Preparation of a management/conservation plan for the Island of Mozambique||29,980 USD|
|1999||Rehabilitation of the Market- Island of Mozambique||30,000 USD|
|1996||Finalisation of an integral conservation plan for Island of Mozambique||19,900 USD|
|1995||2 high-level missions on the conservation and development of the Island of Mozambique||20,000 USD|
|1994||Financial contribution to repairs for the roofs of Sao Paulo Palace||35,000 USD|
UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds
Total amount provided to the property: Japan Funds in Trust: USD 1,108,078; UCCLA: USD 526,015 and Portugal/IPAD: USD 102,900.; Flanders Funds in Trust: USD 270,000; Netherlands Funds in Trust: USD 729,729.73; World Heritage Cities Programme: USD 50,000.
Previous monitoring missions
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008: World Heritage Centre missions; 2007: ICOMOS mission; 2009: joint World Heritage Centre/ ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission
Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports
a) Management Plan not yet finalised;
b) Growing number of collapsed or seriously dilapidated buildings;
c) Threats to authenticity thorugh unsympathetic repairs;
d) Lack of development control;
e) Lack of adequate sewage and water systems;
f) Delay in implementing rehabilitation of the San Sebastian Fortress;
g) Lack of adequate financial and human resources.
Current conservation issues
At its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008) the World Heritage Committee requested the State Party to develop a draft Statement of Oustanding Universal Value, including the conditions of integrity and authenticity; to invite a joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS / ICCROM reactive monitoring mission to examine the state of conservation of the property and determine if it was under ascertained or potential threats; to submit a report on the progress made in implementing the Emergency action plan and in undertaking short-term remedial actions, and on the preparation of the conservation and management plan, for examination by the World Heritage Committee with a view to considering, in the absence of substantial progress, the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
The joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission took place in February 2009 (ICCROM was unable to attend). The mission report confirms that progress has been made on the Emergency action plan and the Conservation Plan as outlined in the State Party’s report below. However it notes that:
a) The responsible authority GACIM has identified that 20 buildings have collapsed completely, 40 private properties and 3 State owned ones are extremely decayed but still partially inhabited, and 38 private and two public owned properties that are decayed and inhabited;
b) GACIM needs a stronger legal context in relation to development and technical issues;
c) GACIM needs the services of a conservation architect on staff;
d) The Conservation Plan (partly covered by the Master Plan currently under preparation by the State Party) and the management plan are being funded with technical support by two different bodies and need to be properly coordinated so as to provide an integrated strategy and avoid duplication;
e) The underwater heritage around the island needs to be considered in relation to the buffer zone for the property, and a map showing the buffer zone needs to be provided;
f) The authenticity of the Macuti town is under threat in view of the changes that have occurred and are occurring, and the growing scarcity of traditional materials used for construction;
g) The lack of sewerage and water supply remain major problems, although projects funded by the Flemish community of Belgium and the Government of the Netherlands will go some way towards assisting with the latter.
The State Party reported in January 2009 as follows:
a) Emergency actions:
The inventory of buildings on the Island comprises 1749 immovable properties and 42 ruins. In response to the use of local radio, newspapers and letters to building owners and users aimed at promoting the care of heritage buildings, 37 buildings were rehabilitated including 4 religious buildings, 29 privately owned buildings and 4 State owned buildings. In relation to the effects of Cyclone Jokwe, which caused extensive damage across the Island in March 2008, the State Party has, with Portuguese assistance, provided funds for the repair of 495 houses in Macuti town– 330 house with traditional material (macuti) and 165 houses of conventional material.
b) Rehabilitation of the San Sebastian Fortress:
The first phase of the rehabilitation of the San Sebastian Fortress was completed in December 2008. However, as a consequence of damage caused by Cyclone Jokwe in March 2008, a site inspection by UNESCO and the contractor for the rehabilitation project identified a requirement for additional works over and above those that form part of the contract. The cyclone damaged parts of the lower defensive walls, including sections adjacent to the Nossa Senhora do Baluarte chapel and the cemetery, the structural stability of buildings and defences. A request for International Assistance has been submitted to cover the cost of these additional remedial works. It is proposed that this work will be carried out using the team and methodology currently in place for the San Sebastian Fortress rehabilitation project. However, ICOMOS has expressed concerns about the proposed materials and methodology which need to be addressed. The State Party was requested to provide the needed clarification before the request is considered for approval.
c) Master Plan:
The Master Plan is being developed with financial support from the African Development Bank. A number of actions taken include training (organised by UNESCO) of the staff of the responsible authority GACIM and the recruitment of 6 additional staff (but according to the mission report they have not been appointed), and creation of a Technical Commission of GACIM to consult on and co-ordinate interventions. Priority actions have been identified, including the improvement of infrastructure (sewerage and water supply), co-ordination with the municipal and other relevant authorities regarding heritage protection, establishing partnerships with colleagues in other countries who are experienced in the management of World Heritage, and promoting actions that enable employment opportunities and generate revenue. The State budget allocation for 2009 has been increased by 200% from 2008.
d) Management and conservation Plan
Funding for the management plan has been approved by the Programme Africa 2009.
The World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS consider that although some progress has been made on addressing the Emergency action plan, through sensitising owners to the need to conserve their properties, the development of conservation and management plans and fund-raising, the property nevertheless remains under severe threat. There are threats to its integrity, through the collapse of buildings, and to its authenticity through the use of non-compatible and un-conventional materials in some restorations, and the overall sustainability of the property is vulnerable in terms of water collection and lack of active management. There remain particular problems with Macuti town where a lack of infrastructure, for both sewage and water, and support for sympathetic improvement and upgrading of buildings is absent.
Consistent and urgent progress still needs to be made and a clear, integrated and coordinated strategy for the property is still lacking. Although serious efforts have been made since the last mission report in February 2007, the situation on the Island of Mozambique remains critical.
Decision Adopted: 33COM 7B.46
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-09/33.COM/7B.Add,
2. Recalling Decision 32 COM 7B.51, adopted at its 32nd session (Quebec City, 2008),
3. Notes the work carried out to sensitise owners and users to the value of their heritage properties and the need for conservation, and encourages the State Party to continue these efforts;
4. Also notes the completion of the first phase of the rehabilitation of San Sebastian Fortress and notes the considerable extra work that will be needed to deal with the additional damage caused by Cyclone Jokwe;
5. Further notes the progress made in relation to training staff and the increased State budget allocation for the conservation work; and in obtaining funding for the conservation and management plans and emphasizes the need for these to be properly coordinated so as to provide an integrated strategy and avoid duplication;
6. Reaffirms its great concern that the Island of Mozambique continues to be threatened by serious degradation of its historical monuments and urban structure and is in danger of losing part of its authenticity; and considers that there needs to be efforts to halt the collapse of buildings while an overall management plan and approach are being developed;
7. Expresses it concern at the lack of sewage and water systems, particularly in Macuti town, and the lack of appropriate urban planning, rehabilitation and improvement of traditional Macuti houses, including the development of a sustainable way forward, and urges the State Party to work towards a sustainable development plan for Macuti town;
8. Encourages the State Party to continue implementing the Emergency action plan and to establish a stronger legal framework for the protection of the heritage of the Island of Mozambique, including the underwater heritage;
9. Also encourages the State Party to provide the responsible authority with additional technical staff and necessary equipment required;
10. Further encourages the State Party to delineate a buffer zone for the property in relation to the underwater heritage and to submit this as a minor modification;
11. Requests the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM reactive monitoring mission, in order to assess the progress made in implementing the Emergency action plan as well as the steps taken to implement the recommendations set out by the mission;
12. Also request the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2010, a report on the state of conservation of the property, including on progress made with implementing the emergency action plan, in particular the points raised above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session in 2010, with a view to considering, in the absence of substantial progress, the possible inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.