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

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

Panama
Factors affecting the property in 2005*
  • Erosion and siltation/ deposition
  • Housing
  • Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Other Threats:

    Deterioration and destruction of the fabric by environmental factors

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Deterioration and destruction of the fabric by environmental factors, mainly water erosion; Absence of management policies; Uncontrolled urban development and tourism pressures (in particular Portobelo).

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2005
Requests approved: 4 (from 1980-1993)
Total amount approved : 76,800 USD
Missions to the property until 2005**

Monitoring mission in 2001

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2005

On 26 March 2005, the World Heritage Centre received information from the State Party, supplemented by information received from the World Monuments Fund (WMF) on 11 April 2005, concerning the study Proyecto Piloto de Panama, sponsored and executed by WMF and recently submitted to the Instituto Nacional de Cultura (INAC) Panama.  The project encompasses three phases:

First phase (executed): analysis of the threats affecting Portobelo and San Lorenzo and identification of its causes.  The study concluded that the main factor threatening San Lorenzo’s Fort is the lack of a proper water drainage system, while in Portobelo the main threats derive from seawater erosion and urban pressure.

Second phase (executed): on the basis of the study carried out in phase 1, a new water drainage system was put in place in San Lorenzo.

Third phase (in progress): concentrates conservation efforts in the Portobelo complex.  This phase has three main components, being 1) restoration, consolidation and renewal of the water drainage system in Portobelo’s Fortress; 2) needs assessment of the Fortaleza de Santiago; 3) proposal for the rehabilitation of the central urban area of Portobelo.

From the reports it can be established that the issues regardinguncontrolled urban development and tourism pressures reflect the absence of comprehensive Management Planning for the World Heritage property.  Several plans have been developed that apparently have not been implemented, or only partially.  The causes of this failure can be attributed to a lack of: feasibility of the plans proposed; integrated approach among stakeholders; articulation with territorial and municipal development plans; precise limits and buffer zones of the properties (the 2002 Reactive Monitoring mission underlined the need to define precise limits and buffer zones that take into account not only all existing historic remains and subsurface deposits, but also the visual integrity that reflects the strategic placement of architecture within the landscape).

ICOMOS praises the progress in the conservation works carried out in Portobelo and San Lorenzo, but at the same time stresses the need for a precise assessment of the significance of the whole World Heritage property, which should ultimately lead to a comprehensive long-term action plan with a prioritized course of action for research, prevention, conservation, monitoring, maintenance and presentation.  Furthermore, ICOMOS underlines that the proposals for future interventions should consider possible impacts on the values, and integrity and authenticity of the properties.  It further adds that, as the fortifications are subjected to several on-going conservation and restoration activities, initiated by different entities, it is necessary to coordinate efforts in order to avoid duplication.

Finally, regarding the increase of tourism pressures, the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS consider that although increasedvisitation could provide for economic benefits, it also requires more extensive archaeological and conservation work, putting in place comprehensive protection measures, and, most importantly, proper presentation and interpretation of what is to be visited.  These measures are critical for the understanding and valorisation of San Lorenzo and Portobelo, not only with regard to the significance of its cultural heritage, but also of its natural heritage.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2005
29 COM 7B.94
Fortifications on the Caribbean side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Panama)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev,

2. Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15B.118 adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),

3. Taking note of the information transmitted by the State Party of Panama on the progress in the restoration project "Proyecto Piloto de Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo",

4. Reiterates its invitation to the State Party to submit a request for international assistance of the World Heritage Fund to support in particular the development of management policies for the World Heritage property;

5. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2007 a progress report for examination by the Committee at its 31st session (2007).

Draft Decision: 29 COM 7B.94

The World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev,

2.  Recalling its Decision28 COM 15B.118 adopted at its 28th session(Suzhou, China 2004),

3.  Taking note of the information transmitted by the State Party on the progress in the restoration project Proyecto Piloto de Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo,

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

5.  Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre a progress report by 1 February 2007 for examination by the Committee at its 31st session in 2007.

Report year: 2005
Panama
Date of Inscription: 1980
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(iv)
Danger List (dates): 2012-present
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 29COM (2005)
Exports

* : 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