Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo
Factors affecting the property in 2004*
- Avalanche/ landslide
- Management systems/ management plan
- Other Threats:
Partial loss of the original fabric
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Lack of capacity in conservation techniques; Floods/Landslides.
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2004
Total amount approved : 76,800 USD
| 1993 | Financial contribution for the services of 2 ... (Approved) | 14,000 USD |
| 1992 | Financial contribution for the monitoring of 5 cultural ... (Approved) | 3,300 USD |
| 1986 | Assist the authorities in preparing a request of ... (Approved) | 6,500 USD |
| 1980 | Equipment and expert mission for the fortifications on ... (Approved) | 53,000 USD |
Missions to the property until 2004**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2004
At the time of the preparation of this document, the Secretariat had not received from the State Party the requested report on the design and further measures taken for the conservation of the property.
From 13 to 16 March 2004 the World Heritage Centre, in cooperation with the World Monuments Fund and INAH Mexico (Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia), organized a regional expert meeting on Fortifications in the Americas, which took place in Campeche (Mexico). During the meeting, twenty case studies on the conservation and restoration of historic fortifications were discussed, including the state of conservation of Portobelo-San Lorenzo. The Secretariat noted the very poor state, in particular of San Jeronimo Fortress, and the person responsible for the restoration project of San Juan de Ulua in Mexico (supported by American Express) expressed an interest in assisting the relevant authorities in Panama to define an action plan for intervention at San Jeronimo Fortress in Portobelo.
Due to the partial loss of the original fabric of San Jeronimo, the World Monuments Fund (WMF) included the property in the programme of World Monuments Watch and began an evaluation project to identify the threats to the sites of Portobelo and San Lorenzo. The WMF is currently implementing the last phase of the project devoted to consolidation works for San Jeronimo and Santiago Fortresses.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2004
28 COM 15B.118
Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Panama)
The World Heritage Committee, 1. Taking note of the information on the meeting on Fortifications in the Americas, which took place in March 2004 in Campeche (Mexico), which discussed the poor state of conservation of the property of Portobelo-San Lorenzo, 2. Thanking the World Monuments Fund and American Express, once again, for their support in the follow-up of the restoration project in San Jeronimo and Santiago Fortresses, 3. Invites the State Party to submit a request for International Assistance to further support conservation works at the property; 4. Requests the State Party to submit by 1 February 2005 a progress report on the state of conservation of the property to the World Heritage Committee for examination of at its 29th session in 2005.Draft Decision: 28 COM 15B.118
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Taking note of the information on the meeting on Fortifications in the Americas, which took place in March 2004 in Campeche (Mexico), which discussed the poor state of conservation of the property of Portobelo-San Lorenzo,
2. Thanking the World Monuments Fund and American Express, once again, for their support in the follow-up of the restoration project in San Jeronimo and Santiago Fortresses,
3. Invites the State Party to submit a request for International Assistance to further support conservation works at the property;
4. Requests the State Party to submit by 1 February 2005 a progress report on the state of conservation of the property to the World Heritage Committee for examination of at its 29th session in 2005.
Panama
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.
