Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
State of Conservation Search

State of Conservation

45
Reports
12
Properties concerned
10
States Parties with SOC reports
bar_chart Statistics view_list List table_chart Table pin_drop Map
Excel File .xls All SOC (Zip file) .zip
Date Start: 2005close
Threats* : High impact research / monitoring activitiesclose
Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (2006)
States Parties: Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan)
Year: 2006
Document Source: WHC-06/30.COM/7A.Add.Rev
Threats*: High impact research / monitoring activities
Other Threats: Natural risk factors; Deterioration of monument
Danger List:  Yes
Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (2005)
States Parties: Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan)
Year: 2005
Document Source: WHC-05/29.COM/7A.Add
Threats*: High impact research / monitoring activities
Other Threats: a) Natural risk factors; b) Conservation of archaeological heritage; c) Deterioration of monuments; d) Alteration of the built fabric.
Danger List:  Yes
Parthian Fortresses of Nisa (2010)
States Parties: Turkmenistan
Year: 2010
Document Source: WHC-10/34.COM/7B
Threats*: High impact research / monitoring activities
Samarkand – Crossroad of Cultures (2005)
States Parties: Uzbekistan
Year: 2005
Document Source: WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev
Threats*: High impact research / monitoring activities
Tiwanaku: Spiritual and Political Centre of the Tiwanaku Culture (2008)
States Parties: Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
Year: 2008
Document Source: WHC-08/32.COM/7B
Threats*: High impact research / monitoring activities
Properties
file_download
Categories
file_download
Regions
file_download
States Parties
Afghanistan Albania Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Germany Honduras Indonesia Mexico Turkmenistan United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Uzbekistan
Threats
High impact research / monitoring activities 45

* : 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.


top