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

Historic Centre of Macao

China
Factors affecting the property in 2013*
  • Management systems/ management plan
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Possible negative impacts of development projects in areas surrounding the buffer zones on the visual integrity of the property (issue resolved)
  • Apparent inadequacy of the current management system.
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2013
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2013**

January 2009: Joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2013

On 25 January 2013, a report on the state of conservation of the property was submitted to the World Heritage Centre by the State Party in response to Decision 35 COM 7B.64 (UNESCO, 2011). The State Party’s report is comprised of summaries of the current status and anticipated directions for the overall strategy for the protection of cultural heritage as well as legal and planning instruments and new administrative collaborations and procedures.

a)  Overall strategy for the protection of cultural heritage, including a Management Plan

The State Party’s report notes the implementation of Directives (2006, 2008 and 2009) that have expanded the protected areas of the Historic Centre, and the completion of several urban design studies on the interconnections of the Historic Centre with neighbouring districts in the wider setting. The report summarises a number of initiatives that have been undertaken under the guidance of a multi-disciplinary management system with a view to fostering a clearer understanding of the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property. The State Party provides some examples on the conservation projects that reinforce the identity of the historic trade port. A widened scope of protection will be introduced in the property’s forthcoming Management Plan, in the form of broader control-planning instruments with its structure expected to be published as part of the new Heritage Law. Details related to the Management Plan have also been shared in the report. The Plan’s publication date is not specified.

b)  Legal and planning instruments

The State Party’s report recalls the instruments enacted as a result of past decisions of the World Heritage Committee, including the 2008 Chief Executive Directive 83/2008, setting building height limits for sensitive areas adjoining the buffer zones and the 2009 Regulatory Decree aimed at preserving the urban harbour and the visual linkages between the Historic Centre and the western riverside. The report states that the property’s legally protected areas have now been enlarged beyond the limits of the buffer zones to cover nearly all of the eastern and western side of the Macao Peninsula, with the intent of protecting the property from adverse developmental pressures. The local administration has already implemented these legal instruments. The State Party also reports that the structure for the new Macao Heritage Law was approved by the Legislative Assembly in October 2012, and the Law is expected to be published in August 2013. Its enhancements are to include, among others, multi-disciplinary coordination; legally binding technical appraisals; incentives and penalties; protection of the built heritage inside the buffer zones; and protection of both tangible and intangible heritage. The new Law stipulates that Detailed Heritage District Plans (partial plans) can be implemented before the Management Plan is finalized. The State Party emphasizes that, under the new Heritage Law, heritage conservation goals will always take precedence over all other urban plans. The State Party further reports that the final public consultation phase of the correlated new Urban Planning Law was concluded in June 2012. The draft was subsequently approved and is now awaiting evaluation by the Legislative Assembly of the Macao SAR Government.

c)  Administrative collaborations and procedures

The State Party describes the forthcoming creation of a new multidisciplinary Cultural Heritage Council, which will have as one of its main responsibilities the articulation and balancing of any eventual negative impact deriving from large-scale projects outside the buffer zones. The report also describes a move towards broader collaborations. These include the Cultural Affairs Bureau and the Urban Planning Department of the Public Works Bureau cooperating more closely in the process of producing Official Alignment Plans (PAO) for sensitive sites outside the buffer zones, consultation of Building Design Regulations, which has been mitigating projects with potentially high impacts; the Cultural Affairs Bureau having direct member participation in various urban design committees; and consultative committees having representatives from both the public and private sectors. The adjustment in the Macao SAR administration’s procedures has literally controlled negative impact of projects by avoiding adverse design decisions being made at preliminary designed stages.

d)  Statement of  Outstanding Universal Value

 

The Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) for the property, as requested by the Committee, has been submitted for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its 37th session in 2013 under item 8 of the Agenda.

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

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies recommend that the Committee welcome the progress made by the State Party in addressing the continuing inadequacy of the current management system. They nevertheless wish to point out their concern about the pace of finalising the Management Plan in order to address potential threats to the attributes that maintain the OUV of the property. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies recommend that the Committee request the State Party to finalise the Management Plan, in compliance with the adopted Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, as well as with the new Macao Heritage Law, the correlated new Urban Planning Law and other legal and planning instruments. 

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2013
37 COM 7B.59
Historic Centre of Macao (China) (C 1110)

The World Heritage Committee,

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

  2. Recalling Decision 35 COM 7B. 64 , adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

  3. Takes note of the progress made in addressing the continuing inadequacy of the current management system in providing effective protection of, and addressing potential threats to, the attributes that  maintain the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;

  4. Also takes note of the State Party’s efforts to establish appropriate legal and planning instruments to protect, inter alia, the visual linkages between the inscribed property and the wider urban landscape and seascape of Macao;

  5. Requests the State Party to finalise the Management Plan by 1 February 2015 in compliance with the new Macao Heritage Law, the correlated new Urban Planning Law and other legal and planning instruments, and to submit the plan to the World Heritage Centre, for review by the Advisory Bodies.
37 COM 8E
Adoption of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value
The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Documents WHC-13/37.COM/8E and WHC-13/37.COM/8E.Add,

2.  Congratulates States Parties for the excellent work accomplished in the elaboration of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in their territories;

3.  Adopts the retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value, as presented in the Annex of Document WHC-13/37.COM/8E, for the following World Heritage properties:

  • Andorra: Madriu-Perafita-Claror Valley;
  • Argentina: Cueva de las Manos, Río Pinturas; Jesuit Block and Estancias of Córdoba; Quebrada de Humahuaca; Iguazu National Park;
  • Australia: Shark Bay, Western Australia; Greater Blue Mountains Area; Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens; Willandra Lakes Region; Kakadu National Park;
  • Austria / Hungary: Fertö / Neusiedlersee Cultural Landscape;
  • Bangladesh: The Sundarbans; Ruins of the Buddhist Vihara at Paharpur;
  • Belgium : La Grand-Place, Brussels;
  • Belgium / France: Belfries of Belgium and France;
  • Bolivia: Fuerte de Samaipata; Tiwanaku: Spiritual and Political Centre of the Tiwanaku Culture; Historic City of Sucre; Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos;
  • Brazil: Serra da Capivara National Park;
  • Chile: Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works; Rapa Nui National Park; Churches of Chiloé; Sewell Mining Town; Historic quarter of the Seaport City of Valparaiso;
  • China: Huanglong Scenic and Historic Interest Area; Mount Huangshan; Mountain Resort and its Outlying Temples, Chengde; Ancient City of Ping Yao; Classical Gardens of Suzhou; Summer Palace, an Imperial Garden in Beijing; Ancient Villages in Southern Anhui – Xidi and Hongcun; Longmen Grottoes; Yungang Grottoes; Yin Xu; Imperial Tombs of the Ming and Qing Dynasties; Historic center of Macao; Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor;
  • Colombia: Port, Fortresses and Group of Monuments, Cartagena; Historic Centre of Santa Cruz de Mompox; San Agustín Archaeological Park; National Archeological Park of Tierradentro;
  • Costa Rica: Area de Conservación Guanacaste;
  • Cuba: Trinidad and the Valley de los Ingenios; Desembarco del Granma National Park; Alejandro de Humboldt National Park; Old Havana;
  • Cyprus: Choirokoitia; Painted Churches in the Troodos Region;
  • Denmark: Kronborg Castle;
  • Ecuador: City of Quito; Historic Centre of Santa Ana de los Ríos de Cuenca; Galápagos Islands;
  • El Salvador: Joya de Cerén Archaeological Site;
  • Ethiopia: Aksum; Fasil Ghebbi;
  • Finland / Sweden: High Coast / Kvarken Archipelago;
  • Guatemala: Archeological Park and Ruins of Quirigua; Antigua Guatemala;
  • Germany: Classical Weimar; Messel Pit Fossil Site; Roman Monuments, Cathedral of St Peter and Church of Our Lady in Trier; Aachen Cathedral; Cologne Cathedral; Hanseatic City of Lübeck; Historic Centres of Stralsund and Wismar; Museumsinsel (Museum Island), Berlin; Old town of Regensburg with Stadtamhof; Speyer Cathedral; Town Hall and Roland on the Marketplace of Bremen; Town of Bamberg;
  • Greece: Mount Athos;
  • Honduras: Maya Site of Copan;
  • Hungary: Old Village of Hollókő and its Surroundings; Millenary Benedictine Abbey of Pannonhalma and its Natural Environment; Early Christian Necropolis of Pécs (Sopianae); Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape; Hortobágy National Park - the Puszta; Budapest, including the Banks of the Danube, the Buda Castle Quarter and Andrássy Avenue;
  • Hungary / Slovakia: Caves of Aggtelek Karst and Slovak Karst;
  • India: Sun Temple, Konârak; Group of Monuments at Hampi; Mahabodhi Temple Complex at Bodh Gaya; Elephanta Caves; Great Living Chola Temples; Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (formerly Victoria Terminus); Mountain Railways of India;
  • Indonesia: Ujung Kulon National Park; Komodo National Park; Lorentz National Park; Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra; Sangiran Early Man Site;
  • Iran (Islamic Republic of): Pasargadae; Takht-e Soleyman;
  • Ireland: Archaeological Ensemble of the Bend of the Boyne;
  • Italy: Venice and its Lagoon;
  • Japan: Yakushima; Shirakami-Sanchi; Buddhist Monuments in the Horyu-ji Area; Shiretoko; Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyoto, Uji and Otsu Cities); Shrines and Temples of Nikko; Sacred Sites and Pilgrimage Routes in the Kii Mountain Range; Itsukushima Shinto Shrine; Himeji-jo;
  • Latvia: Historic Centre of Riga;
  • Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Town of Luang Prabang;
  • Lithuania: Vilnius Historic Centre;
  • Luxembourg: City of Luxembourg: its Old Quarters and Fortifications;
  • Malaysia: Kinabalu Park;
  • Mauritius: Aapravasi Ghat;
  • Mexico: Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan; Historic Centre of Morelia; Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the Slopes of Popocatepetl; Historic Monuments Zone of Querétaro; Historic Fortified Town of Campeche; Franciscan Missions in the Sierra Gorda of Querétaro; Agave Landscape and the Ancient Industrial Facilities of Tequila; Whale Sanctuary of El Vizcaino; Ancient Maya City of Calakmul, Campeche; Archaeological Monuments Zone of Xochicalco; Historic Monuments Zone of Tlacotalpan; Pre-Hispanic City of Chichen-Itza; Historic Centre of Zacatecas; Historic Centre of Oaxaca and Archaeological Site of Monte Albán; Sian Ka’an; Luis Barragán House and Studio; Rock Paintings of the Sierra de San Francisco; Archaeological Zone of Paquimé, Casas Grandes; Historic Centre of Puebla; Historic Town of Guanajuato and Adjacent Mines; Pre-hispanic town of Uxmal; Hospicio Cabañas, Guadalajara; Islands and Protected Areas of the Gulf of California; Historic Centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco; Pre-Hispanic City and National Park of Palenque; El Tajin, Pre-Hispanic City;
  • Netherlands: Ir.D.F. Woudagemaal (D.F. Wouda Steam Pumping Station); Schokland and Surroundings; Droogmakerij de Beemster (Beemster Polder); Rietveld Schröderhuis (Rietveld Schröder House);
  • Nicaragua: Ruins of León Viejo;
  • Nigeria: Sukur Cultural Landscape;
  • Norway: Rock Art of Alta; Urnes Stave Church; Bryggen;
  • Oman: Archaeological Sites of Bat, Al-Khutm and Al-Ayn;
  • Pakistan: Taxila; Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta; Rohtas Fort; Buddhist Ruins of Takht-i-Bahi and Neighbouring City Remains at Sahr-i-Bahlol;
  • Panama: Darien National Park; Archaeological Site of Panamá Viejo and Historic District of Panamá;
  • Paraguay: Jesuit Missions of La Santísima Trinidad de Paraná and Jesús de Tavarangue;
  • Peru: City of Cuzco; Chavin (Archaeological Site); Historic Centre of Lima; Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu;
  • Philippines: Historic town of Vigan;
  • South Africa: uKhahlamba / Drakensberg Park;
  • Switzerland: Abbey of St Gall; Benedictine Convent of St John at Müstair; Old City of Berne; Three Castles, Defensive Wall and Ramparts of the Market-Town of Bellinzona;
  • Thailand: Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex; Thungyai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries; Historic Town of Sukhothai and Associated Historic Towns; Ban Chiang Archaeological Site;
  • Turkey: Göreme National Park and the Rock Sites of Cappadocia; Nemrut Dağ; Great Mosque and Hospital of Divriği; Hierapolis-Pamukkale;
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Blaenavon Industrial Landscape; Blenheim Palace; Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine's Abbey, and St Martin's Church; Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd; City of Bath; Durham Castle and Cathedral; Giant's Causeway and Causeway Coast; Heart of Neolithic Orkney; Ironbridge Gorge; Maritime Greenwich; New Lanark; Old and New Towns of Edinburgh; Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites; Studley Royal Park including the Ruins of Fountains Abbey; Tower of London; St Kilda; Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church;
  • Uruguay: Historic Quarter of the City of Colonia del Sacramento;
  • Uzbekistan: Itchan Kala;
  • Venezuela : Coro and its Port; Ciudad Universitaria de Caracas;

4.  Decides that retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value for World Heritage properties in Danger will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies in priority;

5.  Further decides that, considering the high number of retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value to be examined, the order in which they will be reviewed by the Advisory Bodies will follow the Second Cycle of Periodic Reporting, namely:

  • World Heritage properties in the Arab States;
  • World Heritage properties in Africa;
  • World Heritage properties in Asia and the Pacific;
  • World Heritage properties in Latin America and the Caribbean;
  • World Heritage properties in Europe and North America;

6.  Requests the World Heritage Centre to harmonise all sub-headings in the adopted Statements of Outstanding Universal Value where appropriate and when resources and staff time allow to carry out this work;

7.  Also requests the State Parties, Advisory Bodies and World Heritage Centre to ensure the use of gender-neutral language in the Statements proposed for adoption to the World Heritage Committee;

8.  Further requests the World Heritage Centre to keep the adopted Statements in line with subsequent decisions by the World Heritage Committee concerning name changes of World Heritage properties, and to reflect them throughout the text of the Statements, in consultation with States Parties and Advisory Bodies;

9.  Finally requests the States Parties to provide support to the World Heritage Centre for translation of the adopted Statements of Outstanding Universal Value into English or French respectively, and finally requests the Centre to upload these onto its web-pages.

Draft Decision:  37 COM 7B.59

The World Heritage Committee,

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

2.  Recalling Decision 35 COM 7B.64, adopted at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011),

3.  Takes note of the progress made in addressing the continuing inadequacy of the current management system in providing effective protection of, and addressing potential threats to, the attributes that  maintain the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;

4.  Also takes note of the State Party’s efforts to establish appropriate legal and planning instruments to protect, inter alia, the visual linkages between the inscribed property and the wider urban landscape and seascape of Macao;

5.  Requests the State Party to finalise the Management Plan by 1 February 2015 in compliance with the new Macao Heritage Law, the correlated new Urban Planning Law and other legal and planning instruments, and to submit the plan to the World Heritage Centre, for review by the Advisory Bodies.

 

Report year: 2013
China
Date of Inscription: 2005
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (ii)(iii)(iv)(vi)
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