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

The Grand Canal

China
Factors affecting the property in 2018*
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Threats identified at the time of inscription of the property:

  • Need to revise the system of buffer zones and to consider the definition of priority visibility corridors in order to protect them from the potential impact of new constructions (issue resolved)
  • Finalize the creation of the Monitoring and Archive Centre and improve the historical and archaeological knowledge of the property (issue resolved)
  • Need to strengthen the quality of the tourism development and visitor reception plans (issue resolved)
  • Need to improve water quality (issue resolved)
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2018
Requests approved: 1 (from 1999-1999)
Total amount approved : 20,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2018**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2018

On 1 December 2017, the State Party submitted a report on the state of conservation of the property, which is available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1443/documents/ and provides detailed information on progress made with the implementation of the Committee's recommendations, as follows:

  • The General Plan for the conservation and management of the Grand Canal (2012-2030) has been included in the urban and rural economic and social development plans of the related areas to form the basis for administrative decisions related to the Grand Canal and its buffer zone;
  • Provinces along the property have improved and amended conservation and management laws and regulations to ensure the effective implementation of requirements for protection of the World Heritage property;
  • Efforts to identify potential risks through continuous monitoring are systematically being carried out within the property, as are conservation and maintenance works of historic villages and structures. Ecological environment improvement programmes have been launched for key sections under the guidance of the General Plan while the State Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH) has guided plans for areas outside the buffer zones;
  • Achievements in archaeological research and discoveries have further enriched cultural knowledge of the role of transportation on the Grand Canal;
  • The State Party attaches immense importance to the monitoring of water quality. A series of studies and a monitoring system have been developed in close association with municipalities and regional offices, leading to strengthened accountability as well as improvements in waste management;
  • Great improvements have been achieved in the property's presentation and interpretation through culture exhibition spaces and leisure parks, thereby leading to enriched quality of life of the residents along the Grand Canal;
  • Since 2015, SACH has been organizing professional training on conservation and management for all implicated administrative institutions;
  • For the time being, the State Party will not be considering a minor boundary modification but will continuously monitor the effectiveness of the management and conservation of the property and its buffer zone.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2018

The extensive efforts of the State Party to respond to the numerous and complex conservation and management concerns are remarkable and significant. Conservation and management of the Grand Canal are undoubtedly very challenging due to the immensity, diversity and complexity of the property’s conservation issues. In this respect, the achievements made by the State Party are particularly noteworthy. Progressively, the State Party has succeeded in putting an organizational structure into operation, while directives and regulations have been elaborated, diffused and implemented. Also significant are the achievements made in the integrated monitoring system of the property through the continuous collection and centralization of data and its analysis and evaluation, forming the basis of directives and decisions. Therefore, the Committee may have confidence in the State Party's sustainable efforts to manage the property and strengthen the landscape conservation, water quality and environmental stability.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are of the view that the Committee’s recommendations are being addressed continuously by the State Party and no further reporting is required in the short term. The State Party is encouraged to continue all its efforts to manage, monitor and conserve the property and to pay particular attention to sensitive tourism development.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2018
42 COM 7B.101
Omnibus

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/18/42.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:
    • The Grand Canal (China) (C 1443bis)
    • Carolingian Westwork and Civitas Corvey (Germany) (C 1447)
    • Historic Centre of the City of Yaroslavl (Russian Federation) (C 1170)
  3. Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;
  4. Recalling the benefits to States Parties of systematically utilizing Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) in the review of development projects, encourages States Parties to integrate the EIA/HIA processes into legislation, planning mechanisms and management plans, and reiterates its recommendation to States Parties to use these tools in assessing projects, including assessment of cumulative impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of properties, as early as possible and before any final decision is taken;
  5. 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.
Draft Decision: 42 COM 7B.101

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/18/42.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:
    • The Grand Canal (China) (C 1443bis)
    • Carolingian Westwork and Civitas Corvey (Germany) (C 1447)
    • Historic Centre of the City of Yaroslavl (Russian Federation) (C 1170)
  3. Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;
  4. Recalling the benefits to States Parties of systematically utilizing Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) in the review of development projects, encourages States Parties to integrate the EIA/HIA processes into legislation, planning mechanisms and management plans, and reiterates its recommendation to States Parties to use these tools in assessing projects, including assessment of cumulative impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of properties, as early as possible and before any final decision is taken;
  5. 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: 2018
China
Date of Inscription: 2014
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(iii)(iv)(vi)
Documents examined by the Committee
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2017) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 42COM (2018)
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