English Français

State of Conservation

  • Results
  • Views
  • Exports
11
Reports
11
Properties
11
States Parties
States Parties:  Oman
Year:  2005
Document Source:  WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev
Threats*: Management activities
Other Threats: Deterioration of the earthen structure of the Fort
States Parties:  Dominican Republic
Year:  2005
Document Source:  WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev
Threats*: Management activities
States Parties:  Ecuador
Year:  2005
Document Source:  WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Add,WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev
Threats*: Management activities
Other Threats: Implementation of quarantine measures
States Parties:  Georgia
Year:  2005
Document Source:  WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev
Threats*: Management activities
Other Threats: General need for interior and exterior conservation work of the monuments
States Parties:  Egypt
Year:  2005
Document Source:  WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev
Threats*: Management activities
Other Threats: Dilapidated infrastructure; Neglect and lack of maintenance
States Parties:  China
Year:  2005
Document Source:  WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Add
Threats*: Management activities
States Parties:  Russian Federation
Year:  2005
Document Source:  WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev
Threats*: Management activities
Other Threats: a) Structural integrity and stability of the Church of the Transfiguration; b) Deformation of wooden structures.
States Parties:  Nepal
Year:  2005
Document Source:  WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev
Threats*: Management activities
Other Threats: Impact of new structure of the Maya Devi Temple in the core area
States Parties:  Uzbekistan
Year:  2005
Document Source:  WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev
Threats*: Management activities
States Parties:  Algeria
Year:  2005
Danger List:  Yes
Document Source:  WHC-05/29.COM/7A
Threats*: Management activities
Other Threats: vegetation with roots seriously affecting archaeological remains
States Parties:  Lithuania
Year:  2005
Document Source:  WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev
Threats*: Management activities


* : 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.