An Unprotected Heritage

The Legislative Assembly has approved the new law safeguarding cultural heritage, but what does this mean and what will change, coming 29 years after the last attempt to provide legal protection to Macau’s heritage? The most controversial change is that the protective buffer zones, which surround the 128 buildings, centres and sites that appear on the conservation list, will no longer be mandatory.

 

From the 1st of March 2014, the new law will come into effect and from that date onwards nothing will be able to prevent the Government from reducing or eliminating areas that today surround the listed properties. These areas exist to protect the aesthetic aspects of cultural heritage and also place certain restrictions in terms of construction. 

 

Miguel de Senna Fernandes, a lawyer and one of the promoters for the candidacy of Patua and Macanese cuisine to World Heritage, warns of the risks involved: “It is a very dangerous path. The door to greater depletion of heritage has been opened, now with legal permission, through the omission of the question of compulsory buffer zones.”

In an interview with Ponto Final newspaper, Senna Fernandes summarised the position of lawyers and architects regarding the areas of protection: “It was always understood that they [the buffer zones] are compulsory, as they form part of a set of properties of priceless historic value, which must be protected at all costs.” 

 

This stance has its foundations in a 1984 ordinance that defines the buffer zones as an “indispensable part” of listed properties. There was another ordinance, from 1992, which regulates the status of the 52 monuments and 44 buildings of architectural interest, 11 properties and 21 designated sites.  And, most recently, in an administrative regulation from 2006, then-Chief Executive Edmund Ho not only defined the geographic boundaries of the heritage sites, but also extended the buffer zones.

 

 

 

“The Historic Centre of Macau was registered on the Heritage List in July 2005 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which in turn requires safeguards and specific protection,” explains Senna Fernandes. 

 

“When the government has a political attitude towards heritage protection it must be coherent and not make a decision that may compromise that very same heritage.”

“The reading of this new law may lead UNESCO to reconsider Macau’s situation”, the lawyer cautions, recalling the repeated warnings by the World Heritage Committee to the local government over the past years. 

 

According to UNESCO there are “two factors affecting” listed properties: the “potential negative impacts of development projects in the areas surrounding buffer zones” and the “apparent inadequacy of the management system” of the Historic Centre of Macau.

 

”The door to greater depletion of heritage has been opened, now with legal permission, through the omission of the question of compulsory buffer zones“

 

 

“What we know is that administrative regulations from 2008 and 2009 [which set a maximum height in areas adjacent to protected areas] exist, and now a heritage law”, notes Feng Jing, director of the Asia Pacific regional department of UNSECO, although he admits to never having read the new legislation proposed by the Government. 

Whereas many have reservations regarding any future actions the Government may decide to take under the new law, in keeping with the international organisation’s non-interference policy, the director says: “Let’s see what the impact and consequences [of the new law] will be. For now, we trust the Macau government to strengthen the work of heritage protection.” 

 

“We’re on the case”, he continues, affirming that UNESCO has followed the development of the state of conservation of listed heritage sites since 2006 – through a “holistic approach”.  According to Feng Jing, this also includes taking into consideration the opinions of non-governmental organisations.

 

 

Senna Fernandes believes that, “making the protective zones optional makes no sense at all.”  However, to members of the Third Standing Committee of the Legislative Assembly (AL), it apparently does. 

 

“Most members of the Committee agreed with the Executive’s decision to make the buffer zones merely optional.  Their concretisation will only happen if, and to what extent, the Government understands that their existence is indispensable for [the property’s] protection and valorisation”, according a recently signed report.

 

The alteration to the bill, one that amends a principle that is almost 30 years old, had the backing of members for one reason alone. Namely, it authorises the Government to “deal with the specifics of a very small and particular urban fabric, with small processing capacity and where transformation and evolution imply greater flexibility” in relation to the buffer zones, according to the report.  

 

The Government further claims that, according to the Technical Guidelines for the application to the World Heritage Convention, the buffer zones are not mandatory. They are, however, as architects Mário Duque and Francisco Vizeu Pinheiro argue, more than recommended. 

 

“They are essential to the maintenance and significance of the protected object. It is a necessary safeguarding measure”, says Mário Duque. “I’m surprised at the news. Buffer zones are a very common procedure in historical centres”, he adds. 

 

 

In the candidacy dossier, which is available online, the Government also assured that, under the 1984 and 1992 laws, “any plans which may alter the characteristics of buildings and sites listed as heritage must be submitted to the Cultural Institute for approval (…). And any construction, reconstruction or alterations within the buffer zones are also regulated.”

 

Although UNESCO does not require buffer zones to be mandatory, any inclusion on the list must contain a statement that “indicates the reasons why a buffer zone is not required”. In addition to the points not open to negotiation, are alterations to the protected areas, “any modification (…) requires approval by the World Heritage Committee”.

 

 

Thomas Chung, an architect from Hong Kong, studied the importance of buffer zones in the successful application for the historic centre. 

 

“The protective function of buffer zones is especially applicable to Macau, since many institutions, particularly churches, followed the Portuguese tradition of seeking elevated parts and prominent locations”. 

 

“The World Heritage Committee highlighted this fundamental relationship” between listed buildings and buffer zones, Chung reinforces in an article published in 2009 in the Journal of Current Chinese Affairs.

 

Mário Duque further explains, “For a navigation beacon [such as the Guia Lighthouse] it is of course essential that it not be drowned by surrounding buildings as to not be visible from the sea. For A-Ma Temple, maintaining a sea front view is essential”.

 

In 2007, construction around the Guia Lighthouse, the first lighthouse to shine across the South China Sea, became problematic. A group of citizens complained to UNESCO about the construction of two buildings, one by the Liaison Office of the Central Government and another on Calçada do Gaio, which blocked the lighthouse’s visibility. The red flag was hoisted and Edmund Ho set maximum height quotas (between five and 90 meters, according to the area) for the lighthouse zone.

 

“The definition of maximum heights for building in the Guia Lighthouse area is an example of exactly how spatial descriptions should not at the mercy of skills, interests, circumstances and conveniences of developers”, Mário Duque stresses. The architect insists, “What does not make sense is to change planning strategies because that does not allow for the establishment of a purposeful urban tradition. Instead it creates a weak, if not destructive one, from where little is reborn.” 

 

Vizeu Pinheiro notes that in Macau the buffer zones, “don’t even have the same preventive effect as in other cities”, and gives examples of what he calls “fictitious” buffer areas. 

 

“The street that is the central axis of the historic corridor, joining A-Ma temple to Rua Central and Almeida Ribeiro, is overrun with housing towers”, he notes. The exceptions are the squares of Lilau, St. Augustine and Senado.

 

Having “corridors to the sea, ensuring views and natural ventilation,” is a principle that results from pure “common sense”, notes the architect. And an exercise in respect to the commitments made – not only to UNESCO, “but to China, who we cannot put in a bad light”.

 

 

The proposal to revise the current legislation on the protection of heritage has seen two versions. At least at one point in time, the first version was better than the second, according to the architects, when taking into consideration the new definition of the so-called “construction works of great impact”. The “harm to the landscape and architectural framework of property” is no longer a criterion for assessing whether a construction project enters into conflict with protected heritage or not.

 

There could be grave consequence尸explains Mário Duque. The impact of construction on the safeguarded property is regulated in the classification scheme of UNESCO. Therefore with this change, he warns, “the main risk is the SAR being included on a blacklist where world heritage is put in danger” and where “there has been a breach in the obligations of the Member State [of the Convention], once all the recommendations made by the international organisation have been flouted.” 

 

“The one responsible for this is the People’s Republic of China, who is party to the Convention [World Heritage]”, says Mário Duque, highlighting that the most common reasons for appearing on the UNESCO blacklist are a “poor state of conservation” of heritage and “uncontrolled urbanisation.”

 

Moreover, with the second version of the proposed law, the Cultural Institute has lost out to the Land, Public Works and Transport Bureau (DSSOPT) in regards to the evaluation of construction works of great impact. Whereas the Cultural Institute was once “obliged” to measure the potential impact of projects, it is now stipulated that the institute – responsible for heritage management – “is only called upon to rule” if “DSSPOT senses, predicts, that there is a great impact”, according to the report.

 

Public works will also not depend on the Cultural Institute to design the urban plans involving the historic centre of Macau, the classification of property, or the buffer zones. The only time the Cultural Institute – “has a say [in the impact of construction works] is if DSSOPT so deems” it necessary.

 

In May, UNESCO called for Macau to endow the historic centre with a safeguard plan by 2015. The organisation considers the current one “insufficient for effective protection” of the historic sites listed as World Heritage. The plan is foreseen under the new law, but the Government will not commit to dates and, until then, there may only be partial plans.