State of Conservation (SOC)
The very significant number of reports prepared by the UNESCO Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies to the World Heritage Committee represents an exceptional and extensive documentation on various conservation issues. It is one of the most comprehensive monitoring systems of any international conventions, through a global network of sites.
Properties by Year
Properties by Region
Properties by Category
% of properties subject to a SOC report
State of conservation
Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention refers to the conservation of properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and indicates that each
“State Party to this Convention recognizes that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage referred to in Articles 1 and 2 and situated on its territory, belongs primarily to that State. It will do all it can to this end, to the utmost of its own resources and, where appropriate, with any international assistance and co-operation, in particular, financial, artistic, scientific and technical, which it may be able to obtain.”
Online Information System
The Online Information System is a comprehensive and integrated database on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties since1979 and the factors* affecting their Outstanding Universal Value. This state of conservation database is integrated with all the other World Heritage Centre databases on Nominations, International Assistance, States Parties information, statutory documentation, World Heritage Committee’s decisions, etc.
It includes an advanced search form per property, per region, per State Party, per year, per type of threat, etc.
In terms of monitoring, the state of conservation Information System highly contributes to the institutional memory of the World Heritage Convention and facilitates well-informed and consistent decision-making. It assists States Parties to improve mitigation measures to better protect their properties.
To know more about the project, click here.
The State of conservation Online Information System was established with the generous support of the Flemish Government. The support provided by the other donors to further develop this tool is greatly appreciated.
The Operational Guidelines (Para. 169) indicates that
“the Secretariat, other sectors of UNESCO and the Advisory Bodies (report) to the Committee on the state of conservation of specific World Heritage properties that are under threat. To this end, the States Parties shall submit by 1 February to the Committee through the Secretariat, specific reports and impact studies each time exceptional circumstances occur or work is undertaken which may have an effect on the state of conservation of the property.”
As part of the reactive monitoring process for properties inscribed on the World Heritage List and on the List of World Heritage in Danger, each year the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies prepare reports on the state of conservation of some selected properties to be examined by the World Heritage Committee.
In the 40 years of existence of the Convention, several thousands reports on the state of conservation of properties have been prepared and examined. Besides compiling background information on the properties and reviewing information from different sources, these reports highlight the factors affecting the Outstanding Universal Value, integrity and authenticity of the property and propose activities to mitigate the threats. In some cases, they include a set of corrective measures and a timeframe for their implementation.
On the basis of these regular reports, the World Heritage Committee decides, in consultation with the State Party concerned and as per Paragraph 24 of the Operational Guidelines:
- whether additional measures are required to conserve the property;
- whether to delete the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger if the property is no longer under threat;
- or whether it should consider the deletion of the property from the World Heritage List if the property has deteriorated to the extent that it has lost those characteristics which determined its inscription on the World Heritage List, in accordance with the procedure set out in paragraphs 192-198 of the Operational Guidelines.
UNESCO Culture Sector - World Heritage Centre
Policy and Statutory Meetings Section
- ** Guidance note for the drafting of the Desired state of conservation for the removal of properties from the List of World Heritage in Danger
- ** Nota Orientativa - Estado de conservación deseado para eliminar una propiedad de la Lista del patrimonio mundial en peligro
- ** Note d'orientation pour la rédaction des Etats de conservation souhaités pour le retrait des biens de la Liste du patrimoine mondial en péril
- Format indicatif pour la préparation d’un rapport sur l’état de conservation des biens du patrimoine mondial par l’Etat partie pour les biens inscrits sur la Liste du patrimoine mondial en péril
- Format indicatif pour la préparation d’un rapport sur l’état de conservation des biens du patrimoine mondial par l’Etat partie
- Indicative format for preparing a State Party’s Report on the State of Conservation of its property inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
- Indicative format for preparing a State Party’s Report on the State of conservation of its property inscribed on the World Heritage List
- Expert meeting on the global state of conservation challenges for World Heritage properties Apr 13, 2011 - Apr 15, 2011
See Also (2)
Search by Year2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979
Search by RegionAfrica Arab States Asia and the Pacific Europe and North America Latin America and the Caribbean
Search by State PartyAfghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bhutan Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Brazil Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cabo Verde Cambodia Cameroon Canada Central African Republic Chad Chile China Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Holy See Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Islamic Republic of) Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Lithuania Luxembourg Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Micronesia (Federated States of) Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Togo Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United States of America Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) Viet Nam Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
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”).