1.         Coro and its Port (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) (C 658)

Year of inscription on the World Heritage List  1993

Criteria  (iv)(v)

Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger   2005-present

Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

Corrective measures identified

a) adoption and effective implementation of an emergency plan;

b) adoption and effective implementation of an integrated management plan;

c) adoption and implementation of an effective management structure;

d) a considerable improvement of the state of conservation of the property.

Previous Committee Decisions  see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/658/documents/

International Assistance

Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved: USD 0
For details, see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/658/assistance/

UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds

N/A

Previous monitoring missions

Monitoring missions in 2002 and 2005.

Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports

a) Serious deterioration of materials and structures;

b) Deterioration of the architectural and urban coherence and integrity of the property;

c) Lack of adequate management, planning and conservation mechanisms.

Illustrative material  see page http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/658/

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2006

In August 2002, a joint UNESCO/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission was undertaken to Coro and its Port (la Vela) to assess its management and state of conservation. The mission concluded that there were strong indications that the site met the criteria for inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger and it issued a list of fourteen recommendations to remedy this situation.

In April 2005, UNESCO and ICOMOS undertook a second reactive monitoring mission, in which it reviewed the implementation of the recommendations of the first mission of 2002, evaluated the overall state of conservation of the site, assessed whether it met the criteria for danger listing and elaborated elements for a programme of action to strengthen the conservation and management of the site.

This mission concluded that the State Party had committed itself at the highest level to address the issues of concern expressed in the 2002 mission report and the subsequent decisions of the Committee, particularly through the creation of a Presidential Commission for the Protection of the Site. This Commission has the task of preparing, over a three year period, an integral plan for the conservation and development of the area, including a proposal for a management structure.

Furthermore, it noted the increased presence and control of the National Institute for Cultural Heritage (IPC) and advances in the consolidation of the Municipal Institutes for Heritage (IMP) of Miranda (Coro) and Colina (the port of La Vela).

The mission noted, however, that most actions were in the planning phase and that the results, scope and impact of the work of the Presidential Commission on the state of conservation of the site could only be assessed at a later stage. In addition, the mission was informed that heavy rains occurred between November 2004 and February 2005 and that these rains caused severe damage to a great number of structures, both in Coro and La Vela. In addition, the mission observed a serious deterioration of the authenticity and integrity of the urban ensemble, particularly in La Vela.

Following the recommendations of these two joint UNESCO/ICOMOS reactive monitoring missions, undertaken in 2002 and 2005, to Coro and its Port, the Committee decided to inscribe the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Furthermore, the Committee confirmed the validity of the conclusions and recommendations of the reactive monitoring mission of 2002 and adopted the above-mentioned four benchmarks for the future assessment of the effectiveness of measures to be taken by the State Partyto remove the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

As requested by the Committee, the National Institute for Cultural Heritage (IPC) submitted a report, dated 14 February 2006, including an outline for an integrated plan of conservation and development of Coro, La Vela and its Area of Influence, (Lineamientos del Plan Integral de Conservación y Desarrollo de Coro, La Vela y sus áreas de influencia). The outline is based on a set of four investigatory analyses (PLINCODE) including documents on the history, the architectural and urban values, the environmental and the socio-economic situation of Coro and La Vela. It identifies eight key threats to the Site and its environs and drafts an outline of an action plan.

A State Party report on the emergency actions taken for the protection of the heritage (Informe Del Estado Venezolano sobre la salvaguarda Del Patrimonio de Coro y La Vela) has been submitted. The report indicates actions including workshops and forums with the aim of awareness and capacity building and substantial investments in a real estate pilot project, in provisional security interventions and in a drainage system.

As requested by the Committee, an outline of a risk management plan, dated 31 August 2005, was received by the World Heritage Centre.

The above-mentioned documents will be the base for the final document, the integrated development plan that is intended to be approved by the Venezuelan government on 3 August 2006.

However, the documents do not permit to evaluate the state of conservation; and no such document has been made available. The integrated management plan remains, for the most part, in the analysis and planning phase. There is no conservation plan and no such document has been provided.

The submitted report on emergency actions lacks essential information. In particular, there is no assessment of the present state of conservation or levels of deterioration; no criteria for setting priorities of immediate interventions and no timetable for implementation. The actions put into operation are not sufficient to effectively protect the site from further deterioration.

The risk management plan lacks essential information. Notably, it does not take in account the prevention and response to damages caused by xylophage plagues, by fire, by armed conflicts, by winds and tropical storms, by hazards of human origin nor by hazards of industrial pollution.

Overall, most actions remain so far in the planning phase and that the results, scope and impact of the work of the Presidential Commission on the state of conservation of the site can only be assessed at a later stage. In the meantime, the World Heritage property is not managed as one integrated whole and that there is no conservation plan.

Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM

N/A

Decision Adopted: 30 COM 7A.33

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-06/30.COM/7A,

2. Recalling Decisions 27 COM 7B.102, 28 COM 15B.106 and 29 COM 7B.92 adopted at its 27th (UNESCO, 2003), 28th (Suzhou, 2004) and 29th (Durban, 2005) sessions,

3. Recalls article 11.4 of the Convention and paragraph 179 of the Operational Guidelines with regard to ascertained danger (including serious deterioration of materials, structures and town-planning coherence) and potential danger (lack of conservation policy);

4. Expresses its grave concern about the state of conservation of the property and the lack of adequate management, planning and conservation mechanisms;

5. Urges the State Party to continue implementation of the recommendations issued by the UNESCO/ICOMOS missions of 2002 and 2005;

6. Requests the State Party to develop a time-bound plan for the implementation of the following benchmarks, which constitute the conditions for removal of the property from the List of the World Heritage in Danger:

a) Adoption and implementation of:

(i) an emergency plan;

(ii) an integrated management plan;

(iii) an effective management structure;

b) A considerable improvement of the state of conservation of the property;

7. Requests the State Party, ICOMOS and the World Heritage Centre to define further the benchmark 6 a)(iii) for improvement to the state of conservation, to facilitate future discussions and decision making on this property;

8. Requests the State Party to provide to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2007, a progress report on implementation of the above recommendations, for examination by the Committee at its 31st session in 2007;

9. Decides to retain Coro and its Port (Venezuela) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Decision Adopted: 30 COM 8C.2

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-06/30.COM/7A and WHC-06/30.COM/7A.Add.Rev),

2. Maintains the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

   • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 30 COM 7A.22)

   • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley, (Decision 30 COM 7A.23)

   • Azerbaijan, Walled City of Baku with the Shirvanshah's Palace and Maiden Tower (Decision 30 COM 7A.29

   • Benin, Royal Palaces of Abomey (Decision 30 COM 7A.16)

   • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.1)

   • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 30 COM 7A.31)

   • Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.2)

   • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 30 COM 7A.3)

   • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 30 COM 7A.8)

   • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.6)

   • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Virunga National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.7)

   • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Garamba National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.4)

   • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Salonga National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.5)

   • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 30 COM 7A.19)

   • Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.9)

   • Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 30 COM 7A.15)

   • India, Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (Decision 30 COM 7A.13)

   • Islamic Republic of Iran, Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Decision 30 COM 7A.25)

   • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 30 COM 7A.20)

   • Jerusalem, Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Decision 30 COM 7A.34)

   • Nepal, Kathmandu Valley (Decision 30 COM 7A.26)

   • Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 30 COM 7A.10)

   • Pakistan, Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Decision 30 COM 7A.27)

   • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 30 COM 7A.32)

   • Philippines, Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Decision 30 COM 7A.28)

   • United Republic of Tanzania, Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (Decision 28 COM 7A.17)

   • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 30 COM 7A.14)

   • Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 30 COM 7A.33)

   • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 30 COM 7A.21)