一群市民致 中央人民政府駐澳門特別行政區聯絡辦公室的公開信

中聯辦帶頭破壞世遺 恐將成澳門歷史罪人

＊＊救救燈塔，請大家將此信轉寄出去＊＊

致　中央人民政府駐澳門特別行政區聯絡辦公室的公開信：

貴機構作為中央政府駐澳門聯絡單位，理應以創造美好的中央地方關係為已任，卻竟長期無視主流民意，為蓋高樓不惜犧牲世遺燈塔景觀．為一已之私利，破壞澳門長遠公共利益，破壞澳門人民對祖國良好的觀感．實有負中央政府之所托，有負澳門人民之期待，恐怕是一國兩制最負面的示範．

貴機構明知其將近九十公尺之超高樓，必對燈塔景觀造成永久性破壞，澳門世遺亦極可能因此而被除名，卻仍執意強為之．面對強大民意，竟仍堅持要起夠 88公尺高，無視客觀結果：燈塔景觀照樣被嚴重破壞 （詳下圖）。

更讓澳門市民不明白的是，一個小小的駐地方辦公室，竟也蓋起三十層的超高大樓，帶頭違反國家力倡的資源節約政策，公然違反中央政策，違反澳門長遠公共利益，亦堪稱一國兩制之奇聞．然而，為何一個小小辦公機構需要一棟三十層的大樓？（其容積率幾乎與水坑尾公共行政中心一樣高），實在不可思義．到底是全部自用，抑或會部分出租謀利？亦從來未見主動向公眾說明．

中聯辦為建高樓不惜破壞世遺，弄得民怨四起．成功申遺兩年即遭聯合國黃牌警告，實屬殆笑國際！中央政府駐地方機構為建高樓摧殘地方文化遺產，如今中外皆知，重創澳門和祖國的良好國際文化聲譽，該當何罪？

為今之計，回頭是岸．中聯辦應立即停建超高樓，以誠意和具體行動化解民怨與除名危機，順從澳門民意，重新檢討並大幅降低大樓高度，樹立一國兩制的良好典範，贏回澳門人對中央的良好印象，澳門市民亦將永遠心存感念．否則，澳門世遺離除名日已不遠，中聯辦亦難逃其責，勢將如同本屇澳門政府一樣，成為澳門人唾罵的歷史罪人．

一群關心澳門世遺危機的市民謹上 11/27/2007

＊＊救救燈塔，請大家將此信轉寄出去＊＊

照片來源：http://doradanyu.blogspot.com/

崔世安：堅守申遺承諾保護文物

澳門日報 2007-11-29

崔世安：堅守申遺承諾保護文物

對於聯合國敎科文組織的世遺中心對松山燈塔可能受周邊建築物高度威脅表示關注，社會文化司司長崔世安再次重申，特區政府將繼續堅守申遺的承諾，致力保護這些具普世價値的世遺文物，文化局和有關部門必會整理相關資料提交予世遺中心。為配合新的《文化財產法》，將由政府、專業和社會人士組成文化財產諮詢機構，並爭取於下月公開諮詢。

歡迎提保遺意見建議

崔世安表示，一如世界各地獲得世遺中心列入世遺名錄一樣，特區政府亦非常珍惜這些具普世價値的世界遺產。社會上很多保護世遺和愛護保育的人士，會透過不同渠道反映意見，當世遺中心接到有關信件後，向國家文物局發出並轉交予特區政府，特區政府的態度一如行政長官施政報吿所指，歡迎一切為保護世遺的意見和建議。

特區政府已透過文化局和有關部門，整理所需資料，如實提交並聽取意見。特區政府會繼續堅守申遺時的承諾，一定會持保護世遺文物和原則，希望廣大居民對政府有信心。

文化財產法公開諮詢

此外，新草擬的《文化財產法》的法案文本預計於下月公開諮詢，法案主要集中保護不動產的文化財產。按現行法律規定，受保護的文化財產為一百二十八項，其中被定紀念物的為五十二項，具建築技術價値的四十四項，建築物十一項，以及地點廿一項。為配合《文化財產法》的制訂工作，將設立有關文化財產的諮詢機構，成員由政府部門、專業人士和社會人士組成，探討對文化財產的管理工作及限制，進一步保護澳門歷史城區的文化遺產。

景點緩衝區嚴格保護

崔世安表示，自○五年澳門歷史城區被納入聯合國敎科文組織的世遺名錄後，保護城區內沒有建築物對城區構成危害，經多次諮詢汲取意見後，認為文化局不需對保護區之外的建築物表達意見。

文化局長何麗鑽表示，對每個世遺景點周圍的緩衝區，文化局都會嚴格按照要求保護。於緩衝區之外的規劃，例如何賢公園前、松山山腳等一帶緩衝區之外的土地，文化局在新規劃公佈後，會與公務局進行協調。至於之前已規劃的區域，文化局將繼續努力，尋求各方協調完成澳門世遺保護。

護塔團體冀當局正視

護塔團體冀當局正視

澳門日報
2007-11-29

【本報消息】就聯合國敎科文組織世遺中心關注本澳世遺景點松山燈塔被高層建築遮擋，護塔連線、保護燈塔關注組兩個護塔組織均表示歡迎，要求當局正視，及時跟進、檢討，並公開有關書信內容，以釋公衆疑慮。

護塔連線負責人指出，今年八月中旬已發信至聯合國敎科文組織世遺中心，要求關注松山燈塔將被周邊高層建築遮擋，遭到嚴重破壞的危險，八月底有世遺中心專家私訪澳門了解詳情。

世遺中心九月正式發信至國家文物局，要求關注事件，有關信件近日轉至澳門特區政府。護塔連線希望當局公開國家文物局的書信內容，增強透明度。特區政府將有何舉措、計劃，檢討不足。現階段會持觀望態度，再硏究會否開展下一輪護塔行動。

保護燈塔關注組負責人表示，世遺中心已有回應，要求特區政府高度關注事件，顯見他們向國際組織發出緊急呼籲有成效。希望當局落實處理事件，貫徹“依法施政，以民為本”的方針。不排除稍後與世遺中心再度聯絡，跟進情況，冀望世遺中心組織世遺專家來澳深入考察並作評估。

學者：世遺範圍應停建高樓

學者：世遺範圍應停建高樓

澳門日報
2007-11-29

【本報消息】就聯合國敎科文中心向中央政府關注澳門松山燈塔的世遺景觀被高廈遮擋一事，有學者認為，政府應加強澳門世遺保護工作，並指出建築業利益與世遺保護確存在矛盾。但世遺範圍內不應存在高廈，故保護世遺工作不光是保護一幢建築物，應以連片保護考量，包括四周的民居在內，不然，影響了世遺。

澳門社會科學會會長劉伯龍表示，文化遺產保護相當重要，但澳門到底以建築業利益為先，還是以文化保護放存更重要的位置，兩者確實存在矛盾。從今次事件，反映澳門政府要加強世遺的保護工作。

他指出，世遺保護不光是獨立保護建築物本身，應以連片的保護區為出發點，不然，可能會產生負面影響。建築的高度亦應作為保護世遺的重要考慮因素，文化遺產內不應存在新建的高樓，有關建設應要停止。

世遺保護應與文化產業有機結合起來，形成保育區，如大三巴的周圍也納入發展文化產業的一部分，作為舊城區的發展，相輔相成。

澳門欠缺城市規劃，不過，以澳門有限的地方下難以再進行規劃，故未來宜充分利用珠澳兩地合作的框架下共同發展，如在橫琴闢出土地共同發展。

聯國教科文發信關注燈塔受高樓威脅 澳世遺遭黃牌警告

澳門日報
2007-11-29
聯國教科文發信關注燈塔受高樓威脅 澳世遺遭黃牌警告

【本報消息】特區政府証實已收到由聯合國教科文組織世界遺產中心發出的警告信，對本澳世遺文物之一的松山燈塔景觀受周邊建築物高度威脅表示關注，並要求特區政府提交相關資料。相關範疇官員表示，政府有關部門已積極跟進，尋求解決方案，由於相關建築物已批則，且牽涉商業買賣，有關部門將堅持保護世遺的原則，繼續協調跟進。

文化局工務部門跟進

據消息指，因應本澳相關組織先後發信反映松山燈塔景觀可能受周邊建築物的高度威脅，聯合國教科文組織世遺中心於八月底組織專家來澳考察有關情況，並於九月向國家文物局發信，希望關注松山燈塔的景觀和周邊環境。社會文化司司長崔世安表示，特區政府已收到相關信函，文化局和工務部門現正研究，稍後將向有關單位提交回覆。

積極協商研可行方案

昨日社會文化領域施政辯論時，崔世安就議員提出松山山腰正興建海拔一百廿六米高樓將破壞松山燈塔景觀時表示，當年申報世遺時，澳門城區已歷長時間發展，當時有關專家來澳評定時，部分高樓已完成，亦有已知的未興建樓宇，故提出了可以從三個角度觀賞燈塔的建議。目前在保護區之外的新建樓宇，已完成合法審批程序，並涉及商業買賣，相關部門唯有積極協商，致力研究可行方案。他強調，澳門歷史城區作為國家第卅一項被列入名錄的世界遺產，特區政府必定遵從保護世遺的原則，積極跟進。

已批建樓涉商業利益

文化局長何麗鑽表示，面對有關警告，現時政府相關部門，包括文化局、工務局已積極研究處理方案，由於有關建築物是依合法程序進行審批，涉及發展商的利益，所以特區政府各部門會儘快研究方案，並搜集所需資料交予教科文組織。
何麗鑽表示，世遺分佈於澳門半島的市中心，是居民生活的一部分，亦是不少旅客的活動空間，所以保護世遺是一項較大的挑戰，但政府仍會盡全力、長期地堅持有關工作。正在起草階段的文化遺產保護法，將儘量全面地考慮，希望在未來能更有效地管理在本澳的世界遺產。

MacauHoje: E o Farol apagou-se

“燈光不再” 分享葡文報一篇感性文章
葡文報《澳門今日》發表由該社社長華年禮（João Costeira Varela）及其他6位編輯和記者的聯署評論文章稱，在過去4年多，松山燈塔的光芒一直照耀著徹夜工作的編輯部。但從昨天開始，正在建設中的中聯辦新辦公大樓遮擋了燈塔，編輯部再也看不到燈塔的光芒。昨天是悲哀的一天，但或許會激勵編輯部的人們更加熱愛澳門，更加努力地去捍衛他們選擇這項事業的原則，這項事業就是公正地對待澳門這個城市。


E o Farol apagou-se

MacauHoje

2007-11-21

Durante quatro anos e uns meses, a redacção do Hoje Macau trabalhou afincadamente iluminada por uma luz companheira de todas as noites. Trabalhávamos e trabalhamos com prazer, amor à profissão e amor a Macau. Ontem, porém, foi um dia triste. Um dia que talvez nos faça amar ainda mais Macau e reforçar o nosso princípio de adoptar as causas que sabemos serem justas para a cidade.

Pela primeira vez em quatro anos, não tínhamos o Farol da Guia como ponto de fuga. Aquele ponto de fuga para o qual nos habituámos a olhar sempre que precisávamos de pôr os olhos “lá fora” e pensar ou buscar inspiração.

Como dizia uma colega, ontem, quando aqui chegámos e nos apercebemos que tínhamos perdido Farol e Colina, somos, a seguir a Macau, as primeiras vítimas da insensibilidade e do autismo com que determinadas decisões foram tomadas na RAEM nos últimos anos.É público, e às vezes notório, que um diário em língua portuguesa é feito pela noite dentro, muitas vezes até ao início da madrugada. Nessas noites, habituámo-nos a ver o céu ser atravessado pelo raio de luz constante e nunca decadente. Um raio metódico emanado por um monumento à coragem e identidade de uma cidade que não deveria querer perder-se para sempre na futilidade estética que a está a atacar. O farol, impotente, está a perder-se. Agora, à nossa frente, há uma simplesmente horrível parede de betão. Sabemos que pertence ao Governo Central. E é por isso mesmo, por pertencer à entidade que tudo fez para que Macau hoje possa arvorar-se Património Mundial, que a perda do Farol nos revolta. A ganância da área, do volume, da imponência, do “o meu é maior que o teu” é simplesmente ridícula. Revoltante.

Neste caso - ao contrário daquilo que se passa do outro lado da Colina, onde milhares de pessoas também se vêem impotentes perante a certeza de irem perder o monumento que toda a vida lhes iluminou o sentido de pertença a Macau - a culpa não é apenas do Governo da RAEM, é certo. Mas ninguém, jamais, se esquecerá que o monstro foi autorizado aqui, nos nossos gabinetes das Obras Públicas.

Ao Farol, até já. Ao virar da esquina ainda te vemos. Mas talvez já não por muito tempo.

A Macau, até quando?

Carlos Picassinos
Island Ian
João Costeira Varela
Joaquim Correia Leal
Paulo Borges
Raquel Silva Tavares
Rui Rasquinho
Sofia Jesus

世遺中心的正式回覆 Reply from UNESCO World Heritage Centre

世遺中心對護塔連線和保護燈塔關注組的回覆

Dear Sir/Madam,
Attention: League of the Guia Lighthouse Protectors, Macao SAR, China

Colleagues, we have the pleasure to acknowledge your letters of 21 August and 31 October 2007 to UNESCO regarding the state of conservation of the Historic Centre of Macao in the People’s Republic of China. From UNESCO side, we had officially transmitted in mid-September 2007 your expression of concerns to the Chinese authorities for their appropriate urgent action. Meanwhile, all the documentation was transmitted to the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) for its review and comments.

Although we highly appreciate your efforts in safeguarding the historic urban landscape of Macao , we can HARDLY treat all your requests on this issue through different sources of communication (mass e-mails, correspondence etc.). In this context, we could only acknowledge receipt of your messages/correspondence through this circular.

I thank you very much for your understanding and co-operation.

With my best regards.

Feng JING
Asia and the Pacific Section
UNESCO World Heritage Centre

South China Morning Post: Beijing acts on Macau lighthouse

原來怠惰的是澳門政府．聯合國世遺中心在今年八月收到護塔連線的信，已經馬上派人來澳視察，並向中央政府反映．

問題是，屬於中央政府的中聯辦大樓並沒有停止興建，現在已經逐漸遮擋了燈塔，而澳門政府仍然認為一切無問題，高樓繼續建．這是甚麼世界？

政府這樣的行動，對照近日施政方針中侃侃而談保護世遺、以民為本，真是諷刺．


South China Morning Post - Front page

Beijing acts on Macau lighthouse

Fox Yi Hu in Macau Nov 28, 2007

Cultural authorities in Beijing have sent a letter to Macau over threats facing a world heritage lighthouse, urging it to address the problem and ease public concerns, sources say.
The State Administration of Cultural Heritage attached a copy of a Unesco inquiry that was sent to it in September.
Unesco's World Heritage Centre is seeking "clarification" from Beijing or Macau about a high-rise building threatening to dwarf the 142-year-old Guia lighthouse.
The administration's World Heritage Department confirmed it had sent a letter to Macau last week, two months after Unesco alerted Beijing.
A department spokesman said it was understandable that the Macau government had difficulty scaling back building plans for the Guia Hill area.
"We believe the Macau government is making an effort," he said.
The tower is outside heritage areas as outlined in Macau's 2005 application for World Heritage status.
Unesco experts visited Macau in August to check on the lighthouse, said Jing Feng, an Asia-Pacific specialist at the world heritage centre.
"We've expressed our concerns over the projects and asked for clarification," Mr Jing said. "We are still waiting for a response."
The lighthouse was listed as a World Heritage site when Unesco conferred the status on Macau's historic centre in 2005. Standing atop the 91-metre hill, it was the first modern lighthouse on the Chinese coast.
But a 126-metre, 34-storey residential block being built by San Va Construction halfway up Guia Hill looks set to dwarf it.
Last month, the government backed down on a demand that the tower's height be lowered, saying the building was "acceptable" in regard to the lighthouse.
The new apartment building has risen to about five floors. Some units have been presold.
Macau is in a difficult position as it approved the building plan and has no legal grounds to reverse its consent. It relaxed a long-standing restriction last September on the maximum height of buildings near Guia Hill, opening the way for developers to plan buildings as high as 135 metres at the foot of the hill.
Mr Jing said Unesco had to deal with the matter through Beijing as Macau was part of China.
The spokesman for the administration's World Heritage Department also stressed the need for Beijing to respond to Unesco's inquiry as it involved foreign affairs. "We fully respect Macau's autonomy as a special administrative region," he said, "but Macau is part of China." Sources said the letter was passed to the secretary for transport and public works' office. The office did not respond to an inquiry.

超高樓破壞燈塔景觀 關注組冀教科文派員來澳視察

澳門日報 B11 澳聞
2007-11-01

超高樓破壞燈塔景觀 關注組冀教科文派員來澳視察

【本報消息】就政府多個部門對允許發展商興建“問題超高樓”破壞東望洋燈塔景觀一事遲遲未有正面回應，保護東望洋燈塔關注組已發起簽名運動，收集了六千五百個居民的簽名，並決定致函聯合國教科文組織，要求派出專家代表來澳與關注組會晤，督促政府採取有效措施，降低超高樓的高度，以保護燈塔景觀和視覺完整性，同時建議擴大燈塔南面及西南面的保護區及緩衝區。
超高樓遮擋燈塔景觀
保護東望洋燈塔關注組昨日下午六時十五分在美利閣舉行記者會，關注組成員阮偉堂、劉志強等介紹他們致函聯合國教科文組織，要求派代表來澳會晤的有關信函內容，以及質疑當局為何把若憲馬路及羅理基大馬路部分正在興建的地段，以及空置發展地段排除出歷史建築群及其保護區、緩衝區範圍以外。
他們表示，自從去年得悉若憲馬路將會興建一座廿六層高的大樓時，附近大廈居民已經表示關注，發展商後來更向有關部門申請加建至卅四層，使大樓高度達海拔一百二十六米。由於此大樓一旦建成，將嚴重遮擋東望洋燈塔的景觀，附近多座大廈業主連月來不斷向特首、中聯辦及多個政府部門反映意見，惟一直未得到正式回覆。為此，關注組一個多月前在鬆山、黑沙環、水坑尾、高士德發起簽名運動，共得到卅多幢大廈的支持，以及收集到超過六千五百個簽名。
澳府應盡責保護世遺
關注組並於昨晚致函聯合國教科文組織，期望對方能盡快派出專家組到澳門，共同研究東望洋燈塔面對的嚴重威脅，督促澳門政府採取有效措施，降低超高樓的高度，以保持東望洋燈塔景區的結構及視覺完整性。劉志強表示，由於附近大廈高度都在海拔八十米左右，因而希望發展商把超高樓高度與附近大廈看齊。
關注組認為，澳門已申遺成功，理應依法盡責保護世遺文物。鬆山海拔僅九十一米，但有關部門卻放寬對鬆山周邊土地的建築物高度限制，如此大開綠燈，在多座超高樓建成後，不但會形成屏風效應，還將嚴重破壞鬆山燈塔的世遺景觀。他們認同澳門土地資源有限，未來的樓宇定必向高空發展。不過，政府也要顧及世遺景點的景觀。現時，東望洋燈塔的全景觀還存在，該座問題超高樓一旦建成，便會成為阻礙燈塔景觀的“零的突破”，他們擔心圍繞燈塔的附近地段，未來亦會相繼發展起來，最終會嚴重破壞燈塔景觀和整體視角，影響澳門世遺形象。文化局在保護世遺方面有着責無旁貸的責任，關注組期望該局能給予積極的回應。

保護東望洋燈塔關注組致聯合國教科文組織 (UNESCO) 函件

編按:繼護塔連線後,保護東望洋燈塔關注組也向世遺組織發出函件,要求關注澳門的世遺危機.連串的行動,希望引起澳門特區政府以至聯合國教科文組織重視.函件中英文全文如下:


致聯合國教科文組織 (UNESCO) 函件

2007年10月31日

聯合國教科文組織
總幹事先生：

我們向聯合國教科文組織發出的緊急呼籲
世界文化遺產：“澳門歷史城區”正遭到嚴重破壞的危險！

於2005年德班會議上，世界遺產委員會經過一系列嚴格的審核後作出決議：將“澳門歷史城區”列入<世界文化遺產名錄>，及建議：“全力發展一套管理制度以求在現代環境下，保存文物區現有之結構及視覺完整性及保留文物區之主要景觀線。”　

不幸地,多層超高層大廈正於“澳門歷史城區”的一個重要景區---東望洋燈塔南部及西南部山坡中興建,一旦建成,這些超高樓將對東望洋燈塔造成嚴重的負面影響，燈塔景區現有之結構及視覺完體性將不能保存，其主要之景觀線亦將受到損害。

我們早於2007年1月去信澳門特別行政區行政長官表達我們的憂慮（附件1）,但很遺憾，澳門政府至今一直未有向我們作出回覆,而有關之超高樓之建築工程更在加速進行中；而政府官員卻以經濟發展為理由,對市民強列要求降低超高樓高度之要求充耳不聞,我們亦曾向中國中央人民政府駐澳門聯絡辦公室遞信,要求中央政府有關部門關注（附件2）。

我們開展了”護澳世遺,愛我家園,保護東望洋燈塔世遺景觀“ 簽名運動,獲得大批澳門市民及遊客的大力支持,至今已收集到超過５,６００個簽名,強烈要求降低上述超高樓的高度。

我們向　閣下發出緊急呼籲，期望聯合國教科文組織能認真處理有關事項，馬上派出專家組到澳門，研究東望洋燈塔面對的嚴重威脅，與各關注組織代表會晤，督促澳門政府採取有效措施，降低上述嚴重損害東望洋燈塔景區結構及視覺完體性的超高樓之高度，及建議擴大東望洋燈塔其南面和西南面之保護區及緩衝區。
我們等候　閣下的緊急回應！　　　　　

保護東望洋燈塔關注組 謹上
(聯絡：阮生：853-66846899 )

Letter to UNESCO
31 October, 2007.

Mr Koïchiro Matsuura,
Director-General of UNESCO

AN URGENT APPEAL TO UNESCO

World Heritage Site: ”The Historic Centre of Macao” is in danger

In Durban in 2005, the World Heritage Committee decided to inscribe the “ Historic Centre of Macao” on the World Heritage List (Decision 29 COM 8B.28) and recommended “to make every effort to develop the management system so as to retain the existing structural and visual integrity, and to maintain the principal sightlines of the nominated area within its contemporary setting.”

Unfortunately, various high-rise buildings have been approved to be built on the southern and south-western slopes of the Mount Guia. Once completed, these high-rise buildings will have a serious negative impact on the Guia Lighthouse, one of the major sites of the “ Historic Centre of Macao”. The existing structural and visual integrity of the Guia Lighthouse will NOT be retained and its principal sightlines will NOT be maintained.

We have contacted in vain the Macao government to voice our concerns. (Document 1) No official reply has been given but the construction of these high-rise buildings is carried out in full speed. Government officials used the argument of economic development to resist the public demand to scale down these high-rise buildings. An appeal letter was also presented to the Liaison Office of the Central Government of the People’s Republic Of China in Macao to request the attention of the departments of the Chinese Central Government. (Document 2)

The campaign “NO TOWERS ON MOUNT GUIA ! KEEP OUR LIGHTHOUSE SHINING ! “ was launched to save the Guia Lighthouse. So far we have collected more than 5,600 signatures from Macao residents and visitors. We all demand the scale down of these high-rise buildings.

We present to you this urgent appeal in the hope that UNESCO will look seriously into this matter. An expert team should be sent immediately to Macao to study in detail the serious threat to the Guia Lighthouse, to meet representatives of various concern groups, to request the Macao government to take effective measures to scale down these high-rise buildings and to recommend the enlargement of the protected zone and buffer zone of the Guia Lighthouse, with special attention to its south and south-western borders.

We look forward to your very urgent reply.

Yours truly,

“CONCERN GROUP FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE GUIA LIGHTHOUSE”
contact person : MR TONY W.T. YUEN
Address: RUA NOVA À GUIA, 23, MACAU.
Telephone: 66846899, Telefax: 28303452, ABCD2008@HOTMAIL.COM

居民組織護燈塔是好事 但須提防重演“反高樓真換地”故事

編按：保護燈塔關注組的朋友表示，對以下文章十分不滿，因為該文的寫法，容易讓人誤會他們就是地產商的打手．該文作者為此感到十分抱歉，表示該文只是針對發展商，防止發展商利用民間發起保護世遺的民意謀取私利．該文作者再三表示，澳門民間活力尚在萌芽階段，居民自發組織社會行動更是難能可貴，值得鼓勵，絕無懷疑關注組及居民有任何不正當的意圖．並再次為行文引起不必要的誤會向關注組道歉．

昨天重陽節（１０月１９日），保護燈塔關注組首次在松山緩跑徑收集市民簽名，並計劃在月底將所收集到的簽名交與聯合國教科文組織 。

關注組於去年年底至今曾向中聯辦和澳門特區政府反映東望洋斜巷及若憲馬路之間正在興建一座海拔一百二十六米、卅四層的高樓大廈，擔心建成後將破壞澳門文物建築的歷史環境，嚴重破壞東望洋燈塔的世遺整體景觀，令世遺價值受損，亦有可能被世界遺產委員會除去“澳門歷史城區”的世遺之名。

但至今政府當局仍未有回應或推出切實可行的措施。關注組表示，若本月尾尚未得到當局的回應，將計劃把收集所得的市民簽名寄到聯合國教科文組織尋求協助。關注組表示已收集到2000簽名，加上早前在本澳多處地點收集到的簽名，總數達5000。

居民組織起來，捍衛自己的權利，並把運動提高到保護世遺的高度，對公民社會的意識覺醒是一件好事。護塔連線昨天亦有成員出席活動表示支持，並向關注組阮生了解了一些最新情況。阮生表示，政府至今未有任何回應，而發展商則指仍然等待政府與其接觸商討解決辦法。

在這樣的情況下，我們可以問，政府推出切實可行的措施可能會是甚麼？該地盤四周其實已經環立十幾二十多層高的大樓，政府要降低已經批出的大廈高度，照以往經驗就是換地。最後結果可能是，發展商在原址興建二十層高的大樓，另外在異地再獲得一塊肥美土地，最終損失的是誰？

如果沒有從社會正義的角度出發，發展商可能歡迎更多類似的居民運動出現。最後可能發展出來的模式是，發展商首先為地塊申請超高層建築計劃，政府濫發超高建築批文，再配合居民組織反對運動，政府／發展商從善如流，順應民意降低高度，但以換地補償。發展商從一塊地變為兩塊地，或者一塊地換倍值的異地，是為“反高樓真換地練金術師”的故事也。

表面上居民(保住文物景觀)，政府(順應民意)，商人(換地成功，獲取額外利潤)三皆得益，而損失的是公眾利益。因此，居民出於真誠投入保護世遺的行動，可能還須多加一份心思，防止發展商從中取利．

全民參與：重陽節登高簽名護燈塔大行動！！！

全民參與：重陽節登高簽名護燈塔大行動！！！

護澳世遺、愛我家園、保護燈塔世遺景觀！

主辦：“保護東望洋燈塔關注組”
日期：2007年10月19日 (星期五) 重陽節
時間：上午 8：30 - 10：00
地點：松山

活動主題：宣示保護世界遺產、保護燈塔、保護城市景觀的決心，及喚起社會各界的關注，監察、督促政府切實履行保護世遺的承諾。

活動：步行松山一周及收集市民簽名。

支持、參與： (個人及團體)

聯絡人:阮生 ABCD2008@HOTMAIL. COM

蘋果日報：學者市民誓保燈塔 中聯辦新廈將嚴重遮擋景觀

學者市民誓保燈塔 中聯辦新廈將嚴重遮擋景觀

澳 門 中 聯 辦 新 廈 將 嚴 重 遮 擋 景 觀
學 者 市 民 誓 保 東 望 洋 燈 塔

Apple Daily Green Apple 2007-10-07

北 京 駐 澳 門 機 構 中 聯 辦 正 在 興 建 新 總 部 大 樓 ， 這 幢 高 廈 幾 乎 高 過 附 近 的 松 山 ， 將 會 嚴 重 遮 擋 三 年 前 才 成 為 世 界 文 化 遺 產 的 東 望 洋 燈 塔 （ 又 名 松 山 燈 塔 ） 景 觀 。 跟 香 港 人 維 護 天 星 皇 后 碼 頭 一 樣 ， 澳 門 人 明 知 凶 多 吉 少 ， 衝 著 中 央 面 子 ， 也 要 力 保 燈 塔 ； 一 場 本 土 行 動 已 經 提 升 到 挑 戰 強 權 的 層 次 。

「 係 一 種 國 家 行 為 」

前 日 ， 由 學 者 與 小 市 民 組 成 的 保 護 東 望 洋 燈 塔 關 注 組 向 中 聯 辦 請 願 ， 反 映 澳 門 人 就 中聯 辦 總 部 對 古 蹟 破 壞 的 憂 慮 。 澳 門 中 聯 辦 新 總 部 已 經 起 到 第 七 層 ， 最 初 計 劃 是 蓋 一 幢 樓 高 99.9 米 的 大 廈 ， 比 海 拔 90 米 的 松 山 還 要 高 ， 建 成 後 ， 必 定 把 僅 高 13 米 的 燈 塔 景 觀 完 全 遮 蓋 。 幾 經 抗 議 ， 中 聯 辦 退 了 五 十 步 ， 但 仍 堅 持 要 起 夠 88 米 高 ， 客 觀 結 果 是 ： 燈 塔 景 觀 照 樣 被 嚴 重 破 壞 。

今 年 民 間 組 成 了 「 護 塔 連 線 」 ， 連 月 來 催 促 叫 停 中 聯 辦 新 總 部 工 程 ， 但 不 得 要 領 。 澳 門 歷 史 文 物 關 注 協 會 則 以 學 者 角 色捍 衞 東 望 洋 燈 塔 ， 該 會 理 事 長 鄭 國 強 說 ： 「 澳 門 係 世 界 文 化 遺 產 ， 保 護 澳 門 世 遺 文 物 唔 只 係 澳 門 嘅 事 ， 同 時 係 一 種 國 家 行 為 。 」

鄭 國 強 表 示 不 能 接 受 88 米 的 高 度 ， 他 擔 心 的 是 ， 中 聯 辦 大 樓 將 會 起 模 範 作 用 ： 「 如 果 國 家 機 構 都 起 咁 高 遮 住 燈 塔 ， 其 他 發 展 商 一 定 群 起 仿 效 ， 到 時 成 個 松 山 都 會 被 高 樓 大 廈 圍 住 。 」 松 山 是 澳 門 市 肺 ， 萬 樓 叢 中 一 點 綠 ， 「 呢 度 係 澳 門 人 習 慣 散 步 嘅 地 方 ， 如 果 以 後 被 大 廈 包 圍 ， 對 澳 門 人 享 受 健 康 生 活 就 產 生 好 大 問 題 ， 所 以 我 今 次 好 唔 客 氣 咁 ， 要 向 中 聯 辦 指 出 呢 個 問 題 。 」

澳 門 人 很 少 敢 於 批 評 中 央 ， 鄭 國 強 形 容 ， 中 聯 辦 今 次 是 被 人 「 擺 上 枱 」 。 他 說 ： 「 同 中 聯 辦 同 時 獲 得 批 地 發 展 商 都 唔 郁 住 ， 睇 到 中 聯 辦 座 大 廈 起 先 ， 佢 先 起 ， 到 時 澳 門 世 遺 資 格 被 取 消 ， 就 可 以 將 歷 史 責 任 推 畀 中 聯 辦 。 」

政 府 應 保 護 世 遺

東 望 洋 燈 塔 建 於 1864 年 ， 是 中 國 沿 海 地 區 最 古 老 的 現 代 燈 塔 ， 塔 身 雪 白 。 2005 年 ，聯 合 國 頒 佈 澳 門 為 歷 史 城 區 ， 燈 塔 也 列 入 世 界 文 化 遺 產 名 錄 之 內 ， 澳 門 政 府 有 義 務 保 護 世 遺 不 受 侵 損 。鄭 國 強 說 ， 澳 門 不 似 香 港 會 有 平 民 百 姓 站 起 來 露 宿 絕 食 保 護 文 物 ， 「 一 般 市 民 只 會 關 注 眼 前 蠅 頭 小 利 ， 咁 係 好 正 常 ， 但 係 作 為 政 府 就 唔 應 該 。 」

對 於 天 星 和 皇 后 先 後 失 守 ， 鄭 國 強 感 到 遺 憾 ： 「 香 港 人 覺 悟 得 太 遲 ， 澳 門 要 吸 取 香 港 訓 。 」

記 者 　 蔡 元 貴

South China Morning Post: Alert sounded over vanishing views of Macau lighthouse

South China Morning Post 南華早報
Fox Yi Hu 2007-09-17

Alert sounded over vanishing views of Macau lighthouse

Cultural experts from the United Nations are assessing the impact of Macau's urban growth on a historic lighthouse in the city.

A Unesco spokesman said the organisation had been alerted to towers being built or planned near the 140-year-old Guia Lighthouse, a World Heritage building. The global cultural body had recently brought the situation to Beijing's attention, the spokesman said. It's an urban development and planning issue and we are expressing our concern, he said.

The lighthouse became part of a World Heritage site when the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation conferred the status on Macau's historic centre in 2005. Built in 1865, the lighthouse was the first modern one on the Chinese coast.

Now a property development threatens to throw up a 300-metre-long wall of towers that will obscure the landmark, which stands atop the 91-metre Guia Hill.

One of the towers - to be occupied by the central government's liaison office in Macau - has already risen to six storeys.

The spokesman said the site of the towers was outside the heritage areas outlined in Macau's application for World Heritage status in 2005. Frankly speaking, it's not within the heritage boundary, he said, But as you can see, there's a potential visual impact on the lighthouse.

Last September the government relaxed a long-standing restriction on the maximum height of buildings near Guia Hill, opening the way for developers to plan buildings - as high as 135 metres - at the foot of the hill.
The International Council on Monuments and Sites, which advises Unesco on World Heritage sites, was studying a 60-page report submitted by Macau professionals on potential threats facing the lighthouse, the spokesman said.

A campaign to save views of the lighthouse is widening to people from all walks of life in Macau, with a petition campaign started by residents near Guia Hill gathering more than 2,000 signatures.

A concrete jungle would damage the view of Guia Lighthouse and create a `wall effect' in the area, said Un Wai-tong, a leader of the campaign. It would spoil the environment and fung shui of the entire Guia Hill, and thousands of people who do exercise on the hill may suffer bad air as a result.

Mr Un urged the government to honour its pledge to protect the surroundings of heritage buildings, made two years ago when Macau applied for World Heritage status.

The central government's liaison office originally planned to build a 99.9-metre tower near Guia Hill to mark the 1999 handover. But it scaled back the building plan to 90 metres earlier this year in response to the conservation campaign.

The Macau government said in June it may adopt a 90-metre height limit on buildings close to Guia Hill. However, a 90-metre limit is bound to disappoint conservationists, who believe buildings higher than 20 metres will affect the value of the lighthouse.

Unesco has threatened to remove at least two mainland sites from the World Heritage list and warned against damage to some others.

Copyright (c) 2007. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

Farol só para alguns

Governo decide que monumento deve ser visto só de três pontos da cidade, democratas acham ridículo

Farol só para alguns

Macau Hoje 12-09-2007
Island Ian --

O Governo pôs os pontos nos is. O Farol da Guia só deve poder ser visto do Tap Seac, do terminal do Porto Exterior e da Praça da Flor de Lótus. Os terrenos junto da encosta da Avenida Dr. Rodrigo Rodrigues não se encontram incluídos nestas zonas com vistas principais para o Farol. Os pontos nos is? Para os democratas “esta decisão é ridícula” e não tem justificação.

A decisão foi conhecida na resposta de Jaime Carion, director dos Serviços de Solos, Obras Públicas e Transportes a uma interpelação escrita do deputado Au Kam. Aquele responsável diz ter considerado, em concordância com o Instituto Cultural, que aqueles são os três pontos essenciais de onde as vistas do Farol devem ser mantidas. Carion volta ao argumento utilizado até agora pelo Governo para justificar a altura dos noventa metros na zona da Guia. “O Plano de Intervenção Urbanística das Zonas do Aterro do Porto Exterior foi estabelecido em meados dos anos oitenta do século passado. As alturas máximas estabelecidas para os lotes juntos da encosta da Avenida Dr. Rodrigo Rodrigues variam entre os 20,5 e 98 metros”, volta a dizer invocando a decisão da administração portuguesa. Uma decisão que o deputado Au Kam San, ao Hoje Macau, contesta.

“Segundo o teor desta resposta, o que as autoridades deixam perceber é que não foi dito tudo o que haveria para dizer acerca das verdadeiras razões para esta altura máxima de noventa metros imposta ao edifício em construção junto ao sopé do monte da Guia”. “Num primeiro momento”, continua, “as Obras Públicas anunciaram uma determinada altura escudando-se nas determinações herdadas dos governos da administração portuguesa, que nem indicavam, como sustentam as Obras Públicas, alturas ‘não superiores a 90 metros’, mas oscilavam sim entre 20,5 e 90 metros”. Por outro lado, “se as zonas em volta da Avenida Dr. Rodrigo Rodrigues não se encontram entre as vistas consideradas principais então para que é que se estabeleceu um altura máxima de noventa metros. É uma resposta ridícula, mas que podemos fazer?!”

Decisão afecta
gerações futuras

O deputado democrata aproveita depois para invectivar o Governo acerca desta decisão, ao mesmo tempo, que recorda a responsabilidade das autoridades actuais face as gerações vindouras. “A questão da salvaguarda do valor do Farol da Guia não é um exclusivo do Governo actual nem sequer das pessoas que hoje vivem em Macau”, proclama. É preciso ter a consciência de que este é um problema que vai envolver as gerações futuras”, relembra o deputado sem deixar de notar que estas decisões do Governo carecem de legitimidade e consenso. “São medidas importantes que as Obras Públicas têm vindo a tomar e não têm sido sufragadas pela opinião consensual da população”. Para Au Kam San “este tipo de decisões deveria estar apoiado por uma larga e aberta discussão, mas a verdade é que o Governo tem vindo a decidir à porta fechada”.

Por isso é que “a decisão de construir em altura ‘não superior a 90 metros do nível médio do mar’ é problemática. É que falta um consenso e uma justificação”, frisa. Au não hesita depois em apontar a falta de legitimidade democrática deste Executivo. “Este é um regime dirigido por um Executivo escolhido para governo durante alguns anos, que não foi eleito de modo democrático, e que, portanto, não pode querer representar a população de Macau. Como tal”, sublinha, “não pode simplesmente tomar este tipo de decisões que não afectam apenas a vida de Macau, hoje, mas que terão também consequências nefastas para as gerações futuras. O Governo tem de confrontar-se com a população e tem de submeter estas propostas à discussão pública”.

Apesar desta argumentação, o representante democrata afirma o seu cepticismo em alterar este estado de coisas. Considera que é importante desafiar medidas desta natureza. Mas “não se pode fazer muito mais. O Farol da Guia, a Colina da Guia e outros elementos da nossa paisagem constituem importantes referências do património cultural de Macau. Esperemos bem que possam ser salvaguardados”. Sobre esta questão, também se pronuncia Jaime Carion. Afirma que a maioria dos terrenos da zona C do Lago de Nam Van, localizada entre a Praça de Lobo de Ávila e a Torre de Macau já foram concedidos há muito tempo” onde vão nascer prédios de habitação e comércio. “O novo Plano de Intervenção Urbanística das zonas C e D de Nam Van está a ser elaborado pela DSSOPT, para o qual as questões de vista e de enquadramento com a Colina da Penha serão devidamente estudadas”. Palavra de Jaime Carion.

吳國昌促保護燈塔景觀

正報 2007-09-14 P04

吳國昌促保護燈塔景觀
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


【特訊】立法會議員吳國昌提質詢促保護松山燈塔景觀，其書面質詢內容如下：「行政長官於零六年八月十六日簽署第二四八╱二ＯＯ六號批示，廢除《外港新填海區都市規劃章程》及《南灣海灣重整計劃之細則章程》，並公佈新口岸羅理基博士大馬路一帶的整治方案，大幅放寬羅理基博士大馬路山邊多個地段的建築高度，其中，建築物高度分別達到海拔九十米、九十九點九米和一三五米，個別地盤已在動工。海拔九十一米的松山輪廓線及東望洋燈塔的景觀將被破壞。本人質疑特區政府在廢除兩個章程的同時，沒有為重新制定上述地區的城市規劃而進行任何諮詢工作，變相不作規劃，危害城市環境，令公眾知情權不保。

土地工務運輸局書面回覆本人的書面質詢時，聲稱廢除兩個規章是因為兩規章已基本完成其歷史使命，但並無交代何以沒有新的規章去取代已完成歷史使命的規章。運輸工務司司長在立法會回覆本人口頭質詢時，答辯稱羅理基博士大馬路山邊多個地段的建築高度，將會由工務及文化部門研究處理。

今年八月三十日，土地工務運輸局回覆區錦新議員的書面質詢時，承認羅理基博士大馬路山邊多個地段原規劃樓宇高度由二十點五米至九十米不等，聲稱土地工務運輸局與文化局研究後，只保留外港碼頭、金蓮花廣場和塔石廣場等觀看松山燈塔的主要視線，而將羅理基博士大馬路山邊多個地段樓宇高度調整至九十米。

為此，本人提出下列質詢：

一、土地工務運輸局與文化局基於什麼准則決定把市民觀看松山燈塔的主要視線壓視縮在外港碼頭、金蓮花廣場和塔石廣場等觀看松山燈塔等處？這是否在全無諮詢民意之下的長官意志決定？有否過橋抽板地違背了特區政府在世遺申報書中關於「建築群方面注重周圍環境的配合，盡量保持原來的氛圍」承諾？

二、地盤初步動工不等於沒有協調的機會。無論是發展商，還是中央政府駐澳的機關，大家作為參與本地建設的一份子，都應該會配合行政長官領導的特區政府，為保護澳門人的生活環境，保護澳門的歷史文化景觀，作出協調。

特區政府可否積極協調，維持羅理基博士大馬路山邊多個地段原規劃樓宇高度由二十點五米至九十米不等的原有規劃標準？ 澳門特別行政區立法議員 吳國昌 二零零七年九月十三日」

澳門剩下三個地方可以看到燈塔:這就是政府所說的景觀走廊

工務局和文化局經研究後，認為現時觀看松山燈塔的主要視線必須保留，包括外港碼頭、金蓮花廣場和塔石廣場等地段。羅理基博士大馬路靠山一側地段並非座落上述視線上，故將高度調整至不超過海拔高度九十米。





如此重大的決定,政府只在回覆議員質詢時被動提出,這與政府一直宣稱或之前承諾廣泛聽取民意,有一大段距離.況且,全澳保留三個點可以看到燈塔,依據是甚麼?到時回力球場改建為"海洋之神"的時候,是否又會減為兩個點可以看到松山?





依此邏輯,到時可以宣佈一張清單,標明各文物可以看到的地點,例如大三巴牌坊,必須保留的視線包括大炮台山頂以及牌坊腳;媽閣廟必須保留的視線包括媽閣廟門口以及海事博物館......





定點觀看澳門世遺，確係特區政府一大創舉．








又，政府回應下環無屏風效應．


那新馬路兩端被堵死，政府又作何解釋？





澳門日報 2007-09-12 澳聞 B05

樓宇不能遮外港金蓮花塔石廣場望松山燈塔 羅理基限高九十米
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


【本報消息】關於靠近松山燈塔的羅理基博士大馬路多幅土地的發展問題，土地工務運輸局回覆議員質詢時透露，外港碼頭、金蓮花廣場和塔石廣場等地段望向東望洋山燈塔的視線必須保留。不過，羅理基地段並非座落該區，故其高度調整不超過海拔高度九十米。另外，工務局會研究把條件合適的原工業用途地段興建公屋。有發展商將在下環舊汽水廠地段興建兩幢逾四十層高的商住樓宇，按其設計不致引起“屏風效應”。

工業用地建公屋

工務局長賈利安回覆立法議員區錦新質詢有關新口岸建築物高度時表示，新口岸填海區的城市規劃於上世紀八十年代中期製作，其中羅理基博士大馬路靠山邊一側的各幅地段，樓宇高度由二十點五米至九十米不等。本澳土地匱乏，隨着社會的發展，上述地段的規劃有需要調整，如周邊的街道、交通設施、樓宇高度等條件，以充分利用相關的土地。工務局和文化局經研究後，認為現時觀看松山燈塔的主要視線必須保留，包括外港碼頭、金蓮花廣場和塔石廣場等地段。羅理基博士大馬路靠山一側地段並非座落上述視線上，故將高度調整至不超過海拔高度九十米。

就立法議員吳國昌質詢有關工業用地問題，賈利安表示，位於氹仔北安的工業填海區，三十幅批出土地中，尚有九幅土地未被利用。有關在八十年代末及九十年代初批出的位於路環石排灣工業區、路環石礦場附近的十多幅工業用地，雖然承批人已按照合同繳付溢價金，但由於土地的條件，承批人無法按合同訂定的期限利用各地段。九十年代中，當時的政府已批準將該區的用途改為住宅用途，並向各承批人諮詢意向。因應本澳的客觀條件，相關的規劃細則至今尚未定案，故土地批給合同未能完成修訂。

他強調，特區政府因應當前社會發展需要，按工業用地地段的條件，如地段所在地區現有的設施、交通及其他基建配套等。綜合考慮各方面因素，妥善規劃，調整土地用途，亦會在條件合適的情況下研究考慮將整個或部分地段規劃興建社會或經濟房屋。

下環無屏風效應

賈利安回覆區錦新另一質詢時指出，城市中出現“屏風效應”和“熱島效應”等問題，可能與高層樓宇高度和密度有關。本地現行建築法規除了控制樓宇高度外，還規範塔樓的設計，其形狀、與公共街道的距離、塔樓之間的距離，塔樓窗洞的距離等，以上所有規定都會減低所述效應。

他透露，位於河邊新街的舊亞洲汽水廠地段，將會興建兩幢分別四十六及四十七層高的商住大廈，附設有巴士總站、公共停車場、社會設施和行人天橋等公共設施。針對該樓宇可能產生的環境影響，當局已評估過日照、通風等條件。依據太陽每日的運行方向與該樓宇周邊情況，以及按澳門近年的氣象記錄顯示，本澳平均一年有四個月吹北風(冬季),另外有三個月吹西南風和五個月吹東南風,由於河邊新街和該樓宇是呈東北———西南方向，其中一立面面向內港河道，因此，該樓宇大致上不阻擋有關區域的主風向。

重建須法律先行

此外，賈利安在回覆吳國昌另一質詢時指出，《舊區重整法律制度》草案爭取於今年第四季度提交舊區重整諮詢委員會討論。目前委員會屬下三個專責工作小組正討論和諮詢草案涉及的問題，如最低補償標準，啟動重建比例等，收集、評估社會不同階層的意見，並向政府提出建議。

一直以來，社會各界均認同舊區重建需法律先行，只有在制訂了一套健全法律的基礎上，才能達至保障居民的合法權益，及在保障私有財產和公共利益之間取得平衡，公平、公正、公開地展開舊區重建。故此，祐漢區的重建工作必須有法可依。

對於居民十分關注的補償問題，舊區重整諮詢委員會由去年起已多次討論，委員會和社會各界均認同舊區重建涉及的最低補償標準，應是“讓受影響的業主可以購買同區同質素一定樓齡的單位”。補償方法除了現金補償外，若重建區條件許可，將提供價值單位作為第二種補償方法供業主選擇。價值單位是為着回應居民以樓換樓訴求而提出的一個相對公平公正，及具可操作性的構思。

下半年，政府跨部門工作小組將就最低補償標準展開連串的街區諮詢工作，收集居民補償的訴求，及向居民介紹價值單位，聽取意見。

致聯合國世界遺產委員會的信 Letter to World Heritage Centre

就澳門世界遺產現在所處的情況，護塔連線已於八月中向以下三個機構寄出速遞公函，呼籲有關單位關注澳門世遺面臨的危機：

Mr Francesco Bandarin
Director
World Heritage Centre
UNESCO
7, Place de Fontenoy
75352 Paris 07 SP
France
Tel.: 33 (01) 45 68 18 71Fax: 33 (01) 45 68 55 70
E-mail: info@unesco.org


Gaia Jungeblodt
Director
ICOMOS International Secretariat
49-51, rue de la fédération
75015 Paris,
France
Tel: +33 (0)1 45 67 67 70Fax: +33 (0)1 45 66 06 22
e-mail:secretariat@icomos.org


Dr DU Xiaofan
National Programme Officer
Culture Heritage Conservation
UNESCO Office Beijing
Waijiaogongyu 5-15-3
Jianguomenwai Compound
Beijing, 100600
China
Tel: +86-10-6532 5790 ext. 133Fax: +86-10-6532 4854
e-mail: xf.du@unesco.org

緊急呼籲：澳門歷史城區正在面臨世界遺產遭到破壞的危險
(由於全文包括５８頁的附錄，檔案太大，現只貼出正文）

1. 前言

我們是一群生活於聯合國世界文化遺產城市(中國澳門特別行政區，下稱澳門，ref: 1110)的市民，來自各行各業，包括建築師、城市規劃師、歷史學者、文物保護者、教師、記者等，在此向聯合國教科文組織世界遺產中心作出沉重的呼喚，請你們伸出援手，關注這個位處亞洲中華人民共和國南部的細小城市---澳門的歷史城區現在面臨世界遺產遭到破壞的危險。

“澳門歷史城區”的建築群，作為中國境內現存最古老、規模最大、保存最完整、融合著中西方特色的歷史建築群，四百多年來中西文化碰撞與交融、多元文化共存的例證，符合了世界文化遺產第II、III、IV、V四項標準，在2005年經由世界遺產委員會通過一系列嚴格的審視和評核後作出決定列入了世界文化遺產名錄。(附件一：澳門歷史城區及緩衝區範圍)

2. 澳門政府違反申報世遺的承諾

在澳門世遺申報書中，澳門特區政府強調：「高樓大廈已經淹沒了具有相同歷史與建築風格的許多其他東方城市，澳門保存歷史與文化的成果就顯得難能可貴！」政府承諾「建築群方面注重周圍環境的配合，盡量保持原來的氛圍」。並提交了遺產管理計劃，聲言在歷史建築群及其緩衝區內的任何政府及私人的城市發展計劃，將依照世界文化遺產及建築指引的規條進行管理，並透過立法創造更能保護文化遺產的環境。這是澳門特區政府向聯合國機構提交的保證文件，也是向國際社會、向全人類作出的承諾！

但是，由於2002年澳門政府開放了博彩業經營權，並確立旅遊博彩業的產業龍頭地位，政府開始以經濟發展為主軸的發展政策，在缺乏整體城市規劃的指導性準則下，任由地產發展商大量開發超高層建築，甚至配合發展商的需求，在2005年取消原有對保護世遺景觀有積極正面意義的《外港新填海都市規劃章程》及《南灣海灣重整計畫之細則章程》，至使現時超高層建築遍地開花，無論在數量、位置、形式及環境等方面，已經嚴重影響世界文化遺產景觀的自身存在價值，亦違背了澳門特區政府年前的承諾。




3. 以東望洋燈塔景觀受到威脅為例

我們以其中最具爭議性的東望洋燈塔景觀為例作出說明，希望委員會能夠瞭解澳門歷史城區作為世界遺產所遇到的危機。東望洋燈塔(Guia Light house)位於東望洋山上(海拔91米)，為中國海岸第一座現代燈塔，其所在地理位置之座標值亦為澳門於世界地圖上之地理座標定位，建築為一圓柱形結構，總高15 米，塔頂設置巨型射燈，啟用於1865年，至今仍在使用。

作為澳門歷史城區的主要組成部分，基於航海目的而建立的地標性建築物見證了葡萄牙人在東方這個小城的發展過程，並構成東西方文化直接交流的主要組成部份。另外，如果我們從地理環境及世界航海發展史的角度去看這個地標性建築物就會發現，東望洋燈塔位處山丘的制高點及與海洋有密不可分的關係，這種源於生活、航海及貿易等海洋文化而建立的空間體系，在經過數百年的歷史沉澱後，形成獨一無二的建築、藝術、文化及歷史價值。

如果在這個地標性建築物的南面近海處大量興建超高層建築物，切斷其與海洋的視覺景觀聯繫，就等同於失去其歷史文化的源頭，破壞其尚算完整的空間環境關係，其結果將會是東西方文化交流歷史上的一個悲劇。因此，就算未列入世遺之前，政府一直嚴格限制東望洋山附近建築物的高度。(附件二：前澳門政府原本規劃中的東望洋山附近建築物高度限制圖)

令人十分驚訝的是，澳門政府在2005年申報世界遺產所提出的檔案夾中，竟然將東望洋燈塔南面以及西南面的所有土地排除出歷史建築群及其緩衝區範圍以外，並在2006年8月突然批准發展商於東望洋燈塔南面，133至138多幅土地興建最高達135米的多座超高層大樓。(附件三：133至138地段平面位置圖及其可能遮擋的景觀範圍)(附件四：新高度與原本規劃中的建築物高度限制比較表)(附件五：依2006年8月政府公佈的建築物高度作出的效果圖)。澳門民間社會普遍發出強烈質疑，並發起各種社會行動反對政府帶頭破壞世遺景觀。(可以參見為此成立的護塔連線網站http://guialighthouse.blogspot.com/，以及附件六：部分關於民間護塔運動的新聞剪報)

經過民間不斷爭取，澳門特區政府終於在2007年7月18日公佈該地段新建建築物高度不會超過九十米，並且強調上述地段不屬於世遺保護區，亦非為緩衝區。但是，我們相信，世遺建築的價值包括其自在於環境的各種因素，是連續而成一整體，並非單一的獨立個體，而基於城市發展需要而作出的任何影響世遺景觀的改變，都必須經由一連串嚴謹而深思熟慮的科學規劃。很明顯，超高層建築的峰擁而起，必將破壞這種整體關係，也將破壞澳門世界文化遺產。城市的發展需要新的建築，但無序、欠缺城市規劃的超高層建築對生活環境的破壞在世界發展史上早已經歷了一次又一次的事實證明。但是，我們不要忘記，對於世界遺產的價值意義而言，這種破壞是一次性及摧毀性的，無法復原，得益者僅為極少數的發展商，受到傷害的卻是全體市民，甚至在人類歷史上留下不可磨滅的污點，任何負責任的政府都必須負起其歷史責任，不應草率妄為。尤有甚者，我們作為成長及生活於這個城市的居民，卻無法知悉澳門政府及發展商在有關地段的計畫詳情，整個計畫變成發展商的金錢遊戲，這是現代文明社會所無法接受的事實。

4. 懇請世遺委員會關注澳門世遺現在處於危險狀態的事實

目前，最接近燈塔的建築物已經加快施工，最終將會是一棟88米高的建築物(附件七：基地現況照片)，無論在燈塔上或在山腳下，世遺的景觀視線必定受到完全阻擋。根據保護世界文化和自然遺產公約第11條第4點指出，世界遺產委員會應在必要時制訂、更新和出版一份《處於危險的世界遺產目錄》，其中所列財產均為載於《世界遺產目錄》之中、需要採取重大活動加以保護並為根據本公約要求給予援助的財產。《處於危險的世界遺產目錄》中指出的危險包括大規模公共或私人工程、城市或旅遊業迅速發展計畫造成的消失威脅；土地的使用變動或易主造成的破壞等因素。委員會在緊急需要時可隨時在《處於危險的世界遺產目錄》中增列新的條目並立即予以發表。

以德國為例，科隆大教堂和德勒斯登易北河溪谷(Dresden Elbe Valley)先後登錄於《處於危險的世界遺產目錄》，其理由是周邊的開發。科隆大教堂對岸的高層大樓建設計畫，距離遺產一公里遠，而德勒斯登在城鎮的東南方約3公里的地方計畫建設一座橋，世遺委員會便將之列入《處於危險的世界遺產目錄》中。在此，我們懇請世遺委員會注意，正在興建中最接近燈塔的建築物與東望洋燈塔的距離只有200米，而建築物的高度幾乎與東望洋山體同高。(附件八：依2007年7月政府公佈的建築物高度作出的效果圖)

5. 結語

最後，我們代表有共同信念的澳門市民向世遺委員會作出誠懇的呼籲，希望委員會能有始有終地行使其權力，認真、深入地評估澳門目前有關的情況及事實，迅速作出專業有效的判斷及行動，避免這種破壞人類文化歷史的行為出現。我們誠心希望委員會儘快關注事件，因為破壞已經正在進行，時間變得非常緊迫，而且類似的破壞正在快速擴張當中，如不加以制止，澳門歷史城區將很快毀於一旦，而屬於全人類的珍貴遺產亦將淹沒在高樓中。(附件九：其他一些計劃中將會危害世遺景觀的例子)。


Urgent appeal: The Historic Centre of Macao is under serious threat - its World Heritage could be demaged
(Since the file of 58 pages annex is too big, we can only upload the official text here.)


1. Preface

We are a group of citizens, who are living in Macao Special Administration Region, China (Macao), a city with world heritage classified by UNESCO (Inscription ref : 1110)

We are from different professional sectors of society, including architects, city planners, historians, heritage protectors, teachers as well as journalists, etc. We would like to urge the UNESCO to concern Macao, which is a small city located at the southern coast of the People's Republic of China. The Historic Centre of Macao is facing a crisis, and its world heritage sites and buildings are under threat.

“The Historic Centre of Macao” is the product of over 400 years of cultural exchange between the western world and Chinese civilization. The architectural heritage, predominantly European in nature, stands in the midst of traditional Chinese architecture in the historic settlement, providing a unique contrast. “The Historic Centre of Macao” is widely regarded as the oldest, the most complete and consolidated array of European architectural legacy standing intact on Chinese territory. “The Historic Centre of Macao” meets the standards of the World Heritage in criteria II, III, IV and V. The World Heritage Committee, after in-depth inspection and evaluation, has inscribed “The Historic Monuments of Macao” on UNESCO World Heritage List in 2005. (Annex I: “The Historic Centre of Macao” and the world heritage “buffer zone”.)

2. Macao SAR government broke its promise regarding world heritage nomination to UNESCO

In the application process (through the Central Government), Macao SAR government pointed out that there were heritage sites with similar historical and architectural significance in other oriental cities, yet many of them had already submerged among new high-rise buildings. Integrated within a historically vibrant environment, the “Historic Centre of Macao” still had a clearly identifiable character, remaining a fertile ground for cultural exchanges. East and West had met and merged for over four centuries in an atmosphere marked by respect and tolerance, facilitating unique forms of cultural assimilation, from tangible traditions such as building techniques, to intangible aspects of life such as religions and social lifestyles.”

The Macao Government pledged to “keep the original atmosphere in the Historic Centre of Macao and its surrounding environment.

The Macao government has submitted its management plan for the world heritage to the UNESCO. The Macao government has pledged that to all government development plans and private development need to follow the UNESCO guidelines and local laws and bylaws (locally known as administrative regulations) to protect the “Historic Centre of Macao” and its surrounding environment. The Macao government has submitted a number of documents on the issue to UNESCO, and made promises to the global community regarding the protection of world heritage sites in Macao.

Macao has liberalized the gaming industry in an effort to develop the tourism and gaming industry into Macao’s the main economic activity since 2002. The Macao government has started to depend on the gaming industry’s development as its main economic policy. However, after to be accepted as a world heritage site by UNESCO, the government has hesitated to establish either a master city plan or any heritage-protecting plan to direct, manage, and control its urban development as well as to maintain and improve the environment of the heritage sites. So, it has made it easy for private developers to build more and more high-rise buildings. The Macao government gave in to the demands of the developer by avoiding the “Rule of the Outer Harbour Reclamation Plan” and “Nam Van Bay Renovation and detailed rule.” Therefore, many huge high-rise buildings can be built in those areas. A large number of high-rise buildings have been built or are being planned in areas affecting Macao’s world heritage sites. All this has violated the former promise of the Macao government.

3. Cultural Landscape under serious threat – The case of the Guia Lighthouse

We wish to bring one of the most controversial cases to the attention of the committee, so that the threat to the Historic Centre of Macao, a world heritage, is unveiled. The Guia Lighthouse, located on top of the Guia Hill (91 metres above sea level), is the first lighthouse along the Chinese coast. The latitude and longitude of the site is used to represent Macao’s position on the world map. It is a 15-metre high cylindrical structure, equipped with a huge spot light. The lighthouse has been serving Macao since its inauguration in 1865, and it is still functioning nowadays.

It is a crucial element of the Macao Historic Centre, built as a landmark for navigation. It has witnessed the Portuguese development in this small oriental city, and played an important role in the cultural exchange between the East and the West.

If we look at the landmark building from geography and navigation perspectives, the Guia Lighthouse is located at the commanding point high up on the Guia Hill, with an unsplittable bond to the ocean.

It forms a spacial structure of an oceanic culture, based on livelihood, navigation and trading. Historic sediment of hundreds of years created the unique architectural, artistic, cultural and historic values of the site.

If high-rise buildings are built surrounding this landmark, especially between the coast and the site, it will cut its visual link with the ocean. It will dry up the fountain of its historic context, ruin this spacial relation, and create a tragedy for the history of cultural exchange between the East and the West. Based on this very reason, the government had been strictly controlling the height of the buildings near the Guia Hill, even before the inscription of the Historic Centre. (Annex II: Original height control plan for buildings near the Guia Hill)

Yet to our surprise, the Macao Government excluded the piece of land south and southwest of the Guia Lighthouse from the buffer zone of the site, as she prepare for the documentation for the application in 2005. The government has suddenly granted rights to developers to build high-rise buildings up to 135 metres high, on land numbered 133 to 138, south of the lighthouse. (Annex III: Map of land numbered 133 to 138, and the potential blockage on landscape by the new buildings) (Annex IV: Comparison of buildings built according to the original height limit and the new height limit) (Annex V: Visualisation of the sites with new buildings mentioned on the Government Gazettes of August 2006)

Majority of residents and associations of Macao questioned the change of height limit, and opposed the government’s action to ruin cultural landscape and set a bad example. (Please visit the League of Guia Lighthouse Protectors for some reactions from the residents: http://guialighthouse.blogspot.com/, and refer to the Annex VI: news clippings about residents’ efforts in the protection for the Guia Lighthouse).

With the pressure from the residents, the government finally announced that the height of the new building would not exceed 90 metres on 18 July 2007. She also emphasized that those lands did not belong to the protection zone of world heritage, and they did not act as buffer zone. However, we believe that a world heritage building shall not a standalone object out of its environment and context. It exists and interacts with its environment and contexts, and together they form a complete complex. Alteration of world heritage landscape, because of urban development, shall undertake serious, well-organised, and scientific planning procedures. Obviously, mushrooming of high-rise buildings there will damage the unity and harmony of the building and its context, thus post a threat to the world heritage in Macao.

It is understood that urban development generates new buildings. Yet world history has long proven, again and again, that high-rise buildings without order, control and holistic urban plan will destroy the living environment. Nevertheless we should not forget that such damage is destructive and irreversible for the value of world heritage. It will benefit only a few developers, but harm the entire residents and leave a demerit on the history of mankind. Any responsible government shall be responsible for history, but not acting according to her uncontrolled free will. As residents who have grown up and lived in Macao, we are frustrated to be blocked from any detail information about plans for those lands by the government and the developers. The plan has turned into a money game by the developers, which is unacceptable in a civilised world.


4. Request for attention from the World Heritage Committee to the fact that world heritage in Macao is under serious threats

As we are writing the letter, the construction of a high-rise building below the Guia Hill is accelerating. Ultimately, it will be an 88-metre building. (Annex VII: Update photo of the construction). There must be a complete visual destruction to the landscape of this world heritage.

According to point 4 of article 11 of Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, the Committee shall establish, keep up to date and publish, whenever circumstances shall so require, under the title of "list of World Heritage in Danger", a list of the property appearing in the World Heritage List for the conservation of which major operations are necessary and for which assistance has been requested under this Convention. This list shall contain an estimate of the cost of such operations. The list may include only such property forming part of the cultural and natural heritage as is threatened by serious and specific dangers, such as the threat of disappearance caused by accelerated deterioration, large-scale public or private projects or rapid urban or tourist development projects; destruction caused by changes in the use or ownership of the land & etc.; The Committee may at any time, in case of urgent need, make a new entry in the List of World Heritage in Danger and publicise such entry immediately.

Let us take Germany as an example. The Cologne Cathedral and Dresden Elbe Valley have been added to the “List of World Heritage in Danger” in different years, because of the development of their surroundings. The threat to Cologne Cathedral came from a plan for high-rise building 1 km away from the church. The threat to the Dresden Elbe Valley came from a plan for bridge 3 km southeast of the Valley. For the above reasons, the World Heritage Committee listed the two sites on the “List of World Heritage in Danger”.

We request the Committee to pay attention to the case of Macao, as the building under construction at the moment near Guia Hill is ONLY 200 metres from the Guia Lighthouse. The height of the building is almost as high as the hill itself.
(Annex VIII: Visualisation of the buildings built according to data announced by the Government Gazettes in July 2007)

5. Conclusion

Finally, we sincerely, on behalf of Macao citizens who share the common will, would like to request the World Heritage Committee to enforce your right to make a serious in-depth evaluation on the current situation of this case Macao. We hope your could find out the truth, make the right judgement, and act promptly and professionally. We believe that you can avoid human destruction on world heritage to appear again.

We urge the Committee to look into the matter as soon as possible, as damage is being made, time is ticking against us, and similar damage is rapidly multiplying! If we do not stop them now, the Historic Centre of Macao will be ruined in front of us, and this treasure of mankind will submerge under high-rises building. (Annex IX: Other cases of plans that post probable threats to world heritage)

Condominium owners strive to protect Guia Lighthouse view ‘for future generations’

Condominium owners strive to protect Guia Lighthouse view ‘for future generations’

Macau Post Daily 24 August 2007

Suki Leong

Six condominium owners associations and a neighbourhood association urged the government yesterday to protect the view of the world-heritage protected Guia Lighthouse for future generations by further lowering building project’s maximum height limits around Guia Hill.

Representatives of the six associations and a neighbourhood association held a press conference to make the appeal. The six associations represent dwellers of residential estates near Guia Hill. The neighbourhood association represents residents living in an area comprising Rua do Campo, Avenida Conselheiro Ferreira de Almeida and Rua da Mitra.
The representatives called on the government to further lower the maximum height of the future headquarters of the Liaison Office of the People’s Central Government in Macau, as well as the height of a high-rise residential block under construction near the headquarters of the Macau Monetary Authority in order to protect the view of the Guia Lighthouse.

Yuen Wai Tong, a senior member of the neighbourhood association, told the press conference he felt “very helpless” about the matter, adding he did not know how he could face his family’s future generations if the view of the Guia Lighthouse would “really be blocked” by high-rise buildings in the area.

“Although we handed a petition to the Lands, Public Works and Transport Bureau and Chief Executive Edmund Ho Hau Wah, we couldn’t save the view of the Guia Lighthouse,” Mr. Yuen said.

A resident, surnamed Sitou, said during the press conference that he could not understand why Macau’s pre-1999 colonial Portuguese administration protected the view of the Guia Lighthouse while the current government failed to “protect our valuable memories and our historical buildings. I don’t know why?”

Chan Su Weng, vice-chairman of the Association for the Protection of Macau’s Historical and Cultural Heritage, told the press conference, said the activists were planning to launch an Internet-based signature campaign to protect the view of the Guia Lighthouse. He urged the government to “assume its responsibilities” by making sure that the view of the lighthouse will unaffected by urban development.

Last month, the director of the Liaison Office, Bai Zhijian, announced that the height of the future headquarters in Zape would be lowered from the originally planned 99.12 metres to 88 meters. Mr. Bai said the decision to lower the height of the building was made in response on residents’ opinions on the matter.

While Guia Hill has a height of 90 metres, the Guia Lighthouse has a height of 15 metres. The government said in June that all new building projects near Guia Hill would not be allowed to exceed 90 metres. Disgraced secretary for transport and public works Ao Man Long, who is in jail awaiting a trial on graft charges, reportedly lifted all height restrictions around Guia Hill several years ago.

The Guia Lighthouse is said to be the oldest Western-style lighthouse in the southern Chinese coast. It was built in 1864-65.

個別[問題超高樓]如何善了

大眾報 2007-09-08 澳門新聞 P04 編餘小語 諍言

個別[問題超高樓]如何善了
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


澳門人口急劇增加，土地卻不會自動擴展，即使填海造地，能造的亦有限。因此，發展商和建築商就向天空動腦筋，三、四十層︵甚至更高︶的大廈，便開始曝光，於是引起社會關注。

或以為，人哋有錢起高樓大廈，就算高到摩天，又關你事？話不錯。但社會關注的是高度超出東望洋山︵松山︶，都就成問題，因東望山洋燈塔範圍，屬﹁世遺﹂系列。明乎此，較早前中聯辦主動宣佈，將其位於羅理基博士大馬路﹁東望洋山山坡下︶正興建的大廈高度減低，以回應社會的關注。不過發展商和建築商在商言商，難與中聯辦看齊，認為建築圖則已獲審批，就不必理會社會的意見。

如此這般，不止一次有市民提出反對，他們曾向工務局甚至特首辦表達意見，卻得不到回應。於是東望洋山地區的一些居民聯同坊會，再向社會文化司遞信。

東望洋山的海拔高度是九十米，據說當局准予興建樓宇的高度，只要不超出九十米。不過，近東望洋山腳正在興建的﹁問題超高樓﹂，樓高三十四層，建成後的高度為海拔一百二十六米，這又比羅理基博士大馬路興建的更離譜。

此外更有一說，建築審批原屬工務局，何以要向社會文化司遞信？這可能﹁保護世遺﹂是社會文化司的職責範圍？但又有一說，東望洋山這一區的超高樓審批，先要經社會文化司批准。是耶非耶？

其實，天下本無事，現在的問題是，已獲批則興建的﹁問題超高樓﹂，繼續興建？還是可以有商量而己。站在社會角度，居民總是覺得，當局有必要作出一些交代。