State of Conservation (SOC)
Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (1993)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
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|
1993: expert mission
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Current conservation issues
[Oral report by ICOMOS and the Secretariat]
Link to the decision
Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Panama)
The state of conservation of the site had beens studied by an expert mission in 1993. The mission concluded that the Fortress of San Lorenzo was in an acceptable state of conservation, although stone conservation requires some special attention. The city of Portobelo is under pressure from increased population and deficient infrastructure. An action plan was drawn up for the execution of the necessary archaeological survey before construction works are undertaken in the town. Underwater excavations should not be considered as a priority.
No draft Decision
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC Reports2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2005 2004 2003 2001 2000 1993
Detailed List of SOC reports
More attention to be paid to stone conservation
Inscription on the Danger ListYear: 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”).