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

City of Quito

Ecuador
Factors affecting the property in 1993*
  • Earthquake
  • Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure
  • Financial resources
  • Identity, social cohesion, changes in local population and community
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Earthquake of March 1987; 
  • Overpopulation;
  • Heavy traffic
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 1993

UNDP released $130,000 for the work to be undertaken on San Augustin and El Sagrario 

Several feasibility studies were outlined during a seminar for which international financing has been identified (UNDP/IDB) concerning:

(i)      the development and management of tourism in the historic centre of Quito ($160,000), on the understanding that tourism remains compatible with the master plan;

(ii)     the urban rehabilitation of the historic centre ($250,000);

(iii)   strengthening of the municipality's planning service ($150,000).

International Assistance: requests for the property until 1993
Requests approved: 10 (from 1981-1993)
Total amount approved : 201,800 USD
Missions to the property until 1993**

November 1988: expert mission

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1993

[Oral report by ICOMOS and the Secretariat] 

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1993
17 COM X
SOC: City of Quito (Ecuador)

City of Quito (Ecuador)

A master plan for the historical centre is in preparation and numerous restoration works have been undertaken over the past years. Advice on the structural reinforcement of some of the churches will be provided in 1994 with the financial support of the World Heritage Fund. Restricted financial resources, however, have slowed down the restoration programme.

 No draft Decision  

Report year: 1993
Ecuador
Date of Inscription: 1978
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (ii)(iv)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 17COM (1993)
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