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

Historic Quarter of the City of Colonia del Sacramento

Uruguay
Factors affecting the property in 2014*
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Inappropriate architectural and urban design for a marina and hotel-casino in a building block at the old harbour;
  • Lack of a comprehensive participatory Management Plan for the Historic Quarter.
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 2014

Total amount provided to the property: 2008 ICOMOS Technical mission financed by the Spanish Funds-in-Trust for World Heritage. USD 5076.50: 2011 WHC Technical Mission financed by the Spanish Funds-in-Trust for World Heritage

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2014
Requests approved: 2 (from 1994-2009)
Total amount approved : 35,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2014**

April 2002 and May 2004: ICOMOS reactive monitoring missions; June 2008: ICOMOS technical mission; September 2009 World Heritage Centre mission (update of the Tentative List); November 2011: World Heritage Centre technical mission for assistance in Management Planning. 

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2014

In response to the Decision taken by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session (Decision 36 COM 7B.105), the State Party has submitted a state of conservation report on 22 January 2014. It provides information requested on the harmonization of planning tools for the property and the definition of its boundaries within the framework of the Retrospective inventory exercise. The report is accessible at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/747/documents. Clarifications on the property boundaries were submitted and will be presented to the World Heritage Committee at its 38th session for approval.

In support of the harmonization of planning tools for the property, the State Party reports on the creation of a Technical Office by the Commission of Cultural Heritage for the Nation (CPCN) to provide support in the management of the property, as well as the creation of a consultative committee named the Honorary Council for the Management Plan of the Historic Quarter of Colonia del Sacramento. This council is responsible for improving the management of the property, sharing expertise, enhancing community participation and ensuring coordination among the teams in charge of the implementation of the Management Plan. This council will have a temporary duration and will carry out periodic meetings. Information was also submitted on an agreement held between CPCN and the UNESCO Office in Montevideo foreseeing the completion in 2014 of the inventory of the property, which was initiated in 2005.

Even though no specific information on the harmonization of the Management Plan with the Local Plan for Sustainable Land Use, Planning and Development for the City of Colonia del Sacramento was provided, the State Party reported that the Territorial Ordinance Plan for the Department of Colonia it is currently being reviewed by the regional legislative authority. It is expected that with these management arrangements the State Party will be able to ensure an effective implementation of the Management Plan for the property.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2014

The challenges that have been faced in terms of decision-making for the management of the property are well noted. The main concerns of the World Heritage Committee for the property are being addressed at this stage by the State Party. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies however recommend that the full implementation of the Management Plan and the future extension of the property by including the Bay and Islands of the City of Colonia del Sacramento be closely followed.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2014
38 COM 7B.98
Omnibus Decisions

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/7B.Add,
  2. 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:
  • Town of Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic),
  • Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments (Russian Federation),
  • Historic Bridgetown and its Garrison (Barbados),
  • Port, Fortresses and Group of Monuments, Cartagena (Colombia),
  • Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan (Mexico),
  • Historic Quarter of the City of Colonia del Sacramento (Uruguay),
  • Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin),
  • Rock-Hewn Churches, Lalibela (Ethiopia),
  • Aapravasi Ghat (Mauritius);
  1. Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;
  2.  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 decisions are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.
38 COM 8D
Clarifications of Property Boundaries and Areas by States Parties in response to the Retrospective Inventory

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/8D,
  2. Recalling Decision 37 COM 8D, adopted at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013),
  3. Acknowledges the excellent work accomplished by States Parties in the clarification of the delimitations of their World Heritage properties and commends them for their efforts to improve the credibility of the World Heritage List;
  4. Recalls that the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies will not be able to examine proposals for minor or significant modifications to boundaries of World Heritage properties whenever the delimitations of such properties as inscribed are unclear;
  5. Takes note of the clarifications of property boundaries and areas provided by the States Parties in response to the Retrospective Inventory, as presented in the annexes of Document WHC-14/38.COM/8D:

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC:

  • China: Mogao Caves; Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor; Lushan National Park; Wulingyuan Scenic and Historic Interest Area; Jiuzhaigou Valley Scenic and Historic Interest Area;
  • Japan: Historic Monuments of Ancient Kyoto (Kyotot, Uji and Otsu Cities);
  • Thailand: Thungyai-Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries;

EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA:

  • Canada: Miguasha National Park; Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks;
  • Canada / United States of America: Kluane / Wrangell-St. Elias / Glacier Bay / Tatshenshini-Alsek;
  • France: Prehistoric Sites and Decorated Caves of the Vézère Valley;
  • Germany: Speyer Cathedral; Roman Monuments, Cathedral of St. Peter and Church of Our Lady in Trier; Abbey and Altenmünster of Lorsch;
  • Russian Federation: Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments;
  • Spain: Route of Santiago de Compostela;
  • United States of America: Redwood National and State Parks; Mammoth Cave National Park; Statue of Liberty; Yosemite National Park; Taos Pueblo;

LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARRIBBEAN:

  • Argentina: Iguazu National Park;
  • Argentina / Brazil: Jesuit Missions of the Guarani: San Ignacio Mini, Santa Ana, Nuestra Senora de Loreto, Santa Maria Mayor, Ruins of San Miguel das Missoes;
  • Brazil: Historic Town of Ouro Preto; Serra da Capivara National Park; Historic Centre of the Town of Olinda; Historic Centre of Salvador de Bahia;
  • Colombia: San Augustín Archeological Park; National Archeological Park of Tierradentro; Los Katíos National Park;
  • Costa Rica / Panama : Talamanca Range-La Amistad Reserves / La Amistad National Park ;
  • Guatemala: Archaeological Park and Ruins of Quirigua;
  • Mexico: Historic Monuments Zone of Querétaro; Earliest 16th-Century Monasteries on the Slopes of Popocatepetl; Hospicio Cabañas, Guadalajara; Historic Centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco;
  • Uruguay: Historic Quarter of the City of Colonia del Sacramento.
6. Requests the States Parties which have not yet answered the questions raised in the framework of the Retrospective Inventory to provide all clarifications and documentation as soon as possible and by 1 December 2014 at the latest.

Draft Decision:  38 COM 7B.98

The World Heritage Committee,

  1.  Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/7B.Add,
  2.  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 :
  • Town of Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic),
  • Historic Centre of Saint Petersburg and Related Groups of Monuments (Russian Federation),
  • Historic Bridgetown and its Garrison (Barbados),
  • Port, Fortresses and Group of Monuments, Cartagena (Colombia),
  • Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan (Mexico),
  • Historic Quarter of the City of Colonia del Sacramento (Uruguay),
  • Royal Palaces of Abomey (Benin),
  • Rock-Hewn Churches, Lalibela (Ethiopia),
  • Aapravasi Ghat (Mauritius);

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

4.          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 decisions are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.

Report year: 2014
Uruguay
Date of Inscription: 1995
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iv)
Documents examined by the Committee
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2014) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 38COM (2014)
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