jump to the content

State of Conservation (SOC)

Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (2008)

UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property

Requests Approved: 0 (from1980-1993)
Total Amount Ap proved: 76,800USD

1993   Financial contribution for the services of 2 architects/engineers ...   14,000  USD
1992   Financial contribution for the monitoring of 5 cultural sites: ...   3,300  USD
1986   Assist the authorities in preparing a request of assistance for ...   6,500  USD
1980   Equipment and expert mission for the fortifications on the ...   53,000  USD
Missions**

November 2001: Reactive monitoring mission UNESCO World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

a) Deterioration and destruction of the fabric of the property by environmental factors, lack of maintenance, as well as polluted water;

b) Erosion;

c) Absence of management policies included in management plans;

d) Uncontrolled urban development;

e) Tourism pressures (in particular at Portobelo).

Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues

Official information was received by the World Heritage Centre on April 29 2008. The report presents a summary of the history of the site, but no consideration of the state of conservation of the site has been included. No information concerning the direct or indirect impact of the new infrastructures of the Panamá Channel was submitted..

Previous state of conservation reports have indicated the pressing need to develop management plans, which include precise assessments of all issues currently affecting the properties inscribed, as well as a prescribed course of action to address them in the short, medium and long-term. These include, amongst others:

 

San Lorenzo :

a) Poor state of the road leading to the Castle, with difficult access, particularly during the rainy season;

b) Lack of parking facilities;

c) Lack of restrooms, electricity or drinking water;

d) Poor maintenance of the surrounding environment;

e) Lack of signage, brochures or information;

f) Lack of tourist facilities or visitor centre;

g) Damage to the dock at the base of the fortress is evident;

h) Lack of safe access to the courtyard of the Castle;

 

Portobelo :

a) Illegal settlements in immediate vicinity of the fortifications;

b) Lack of implementation of the conservation regulations on culture and environment by local authorities;

c) Lack of housing alternatives for families, who have built their houses on the fortifications;

d) Lack of tourist facilities, hotels or docks;

e) The drainage system in the village does not work properly and the water supply is insufficient;

f) Lack of treatment of residual water, increasing pollution in the urban and archeological areas as well as in the sea;

g) Lack of system for collecting rain water;

h) Lack of conservation and restoration interventions at the monuments;

i) Lack of implementation of the territorial plan;

 

The 2007 report mentioned that the National Institute of Culture is working on the development of preservation and recovery works at the Patronato de San Lorenzo, through a technical office in Portobelo to increase the direct relationship between the different levels of government. The report sent by the State Party still describes this possibility. Unfortunately it is not clear if the patronato has already been created or if it is in the process of being consolidated. The rules for its operation were also included, but it is not clear if they were already approved or they are still under revision. A five-year activity list for the patronato was attached, but no specification of when the activities are going to start or how the interventions will be undertaken.

Conclusion
Decision
  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

32COM7B.125
Link to the decision

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-08/32.COM/7B.Add,

2. Recalling Decision 31 COM 7B.122, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),

3. Regrets that the report sent by the State Party did not include actualized information, despite the worrying state of conservation of the property,

4. Reiterates its invitation to the State Party to submit a request for International Assistance to support in particular the development of a management plan for the property;

5. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2009, a comprehensive progress report, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd session in 2009.

Draft Decision: 32 COM 7B.125

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-08/32.COM/7B.Add,

2. Recalling Decision 31 COM 7B.122, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),

3. Regrets that the report sent by the State Party did not include actualized information, despite the preoccupying state of conservation of the property,

4. Reiterates its invitation to the State Party to submit a request for International Assistance to support in particular the development of a management plan for the property;

5. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2009, a comprehensive progress report, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd session in 2009.

 

Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo
State Party:
Panama
Date of Inscription: 1980
Nomination records (Year): 1979
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(iv)
Exports
Word File
SOC Reports (year)
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2005
2004
1993
Threats*
  • Housing
  • Impacts of tourism/visitor/recreation
  • Erosion and siltation/ deposition
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Other Threats:
    Deterioration and destruction of the fabric of the property by environmental factors, lack of maintenance, as well as polluted water
Inscription on the Danger List
Year: 2012
Threats to the Site:

Efforts continue to be inadequate to address the poor and fragile state of conservation of the property.

Despite the budget increase, the implementation of measures to address the conservation of the built fabric, urban expansion, encroachment and reforestation have remained in the planning stages for over ten years.

The Emergency Plan has only been partially developed and no precise indication on the expected timeframe for implementation has been provided.

There are still critical needs in terms of staffing and resources, as well as capacities to systematically implement conservation, management and protection actions for the property.



* : 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.