1.         Coro and its Port (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) (C 658)

Year of inscription on the World Heritage List  1993

Criteria  (iv)(v)

Year(s) of inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger    2005-present

Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger

Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger

Proposed in the draft Decision below

Corrective measures identified

Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1603; updates proposed in the draft Decision below

Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures

Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1603; updates proposed in the draft Decision below

Previous Committee Decisions  see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/658/documents/

International Assistance

Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved: USD 0
For details, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/658/assistance/

UNESCO Extra-budgetary Funds

Total amount provided: USD 20,000 (Spanish Funds-in-Trust for World Heritage) for the planning, implementation and subsequent publications of participatory workshops and meetings with artisans and civil society in Coro and La Vela. 


Previous monitoring missions

September 2006: World Heritage Centre mission to assessment of the state of conservation; April 2005, May 2008 and February 2011: Joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS reactive monitoring missions.

Factors affecting the property identified in previous reports

Illustrative material  see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/658/

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2014

On 31 January 2014, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report. It reports is available at the following address https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/658/documentsand progress on the following:

Analysis and Conclusions of the World Heritage Centre, ICOMOS and ICCROM

Considerable effort has been made by the State Party in improving the conditions at the property that led to its inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Through major interventions, landmark buildings at the property have been restored and given new functions that will facilitate their maintenance in the future. The State Party should be recognised for its efforts in integrating and supporting traditional knowledge as part of the conservation system, which will ensure the continuity of these practices. Notwithstanding, although many of the significant buildings have been attended to, the updated data sheets still indicate that a large number of traditional or domestic buildings continue to be in poor to irregular state of conservation; some even are noted as ruins. Reversing these conditions will require sustained and comprehensive efforts and need to be prioritised as a next step to ensure that all attributes of the property are adequately conserved and protected.

Regarding management, progress has also been made in setting up an operational unit to enhance decision-making, cooperation and streamline actions at the property. The active inclusion of different social groups in management and conservation endeavours will be crucial to ensure the sustainability of the system and promote active maintenance of domestic and traditional buildings. However, the Management Plan has yet to be fully developed and adopted to inform a sustained and articulated course of action for all attributes at the property. Conservation guidelines and other regulatory measures for new development and rehabilitation, such as zoning municipal ordinances, also need to be adopted to ensure the adequate protection of the property and to sustain its conditions of authenticity and integrity. Of particular importance will be the thorough development of a disaster risk preparedness plan, with a particular focus on the vulnerability to flooding, and the comprehensive design of a drainage system to prevent large-scale impacts.

Although progress has been made, to date significant challenges remain to sustain the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the property and that this will require sustained commitment and efforts. The Desired state of conservation and the corrective measures have been revised to provide a clear roadmap and timeframe for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Decision Adopted: 38 COM 7A.23

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC-14/38.COM/7A.Add,
  2. Recalling Decision 37 COM 7A.39 adopted at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013),
  3. Welcomes the efforts made by the State Party in addressing the state of conservation of the property and progress on implementation of recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee and the monitoring missions to the property;
  4. Takes note of the submission of the revised cartography for the component parts of the property and proposed buffer zone and requests that it be finalized within the framework of the retrospective inventory process;
  5. Adopts the revised Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR), as follows:
    1. Traditional civil, religious and domestic architecture has been conserved in accordance to clear conservation principles that ensure that conditions of authenticity and integrity continue to be met. Conservation interventions are based on a prioritised and comprehensive strategy and plan that ensures continued actions,
    2. The participatory management arrangements for the property are sustained through adequate resource allocation and staffing and guided by the adopted Management Plan, which includes provisions and regulatory measures for the component parts of the property and its buffer zones,
    3. The disaster risk preparedness plan is fully operational and a comprehensive drainage system to prevent impacts from flooding vulnerability has been implemented,
    4. The legal framework has been harmonised and effective measures are in place to adequately enforce regulations and sanction non-compliant development;
  6. Also adopts the revised corrective measures and timeframe for implementation, as follows:
    1. Measures to be implemented within one year:
      1. Development of a spatial analysis for the property to identify and assist with the design of the conservation, use and functioning of the component parts,
      2. Full development of the management plan for the property, including definition of regulatory measures for proposed buffer zones and heritage areas, a sustainable development strategy for the property, a public use plan, and a disaster risk preparedness plan to address all vulnerabilities at the property,
      3. Full development of the conservation strategy and action plan, including a prioritised and costed interventions programme, based on the results from condition surveys, and guidelines for conservation, restoration and maintenance interventions,
      4. Development of a strategy and action plan to formally integrate traditional know-how in conservation strategies and support capacity-building in the long-term,
      5. Development and implementation of a strategy to address problems related to ownership and abandonment of traditional domestic and civil architecture and identification of actions for proposed building reutilization,
    2. Measures to be implemented within two years:
      1. Harmonisation of legal tools to ensure that overlapping mandates and provisions have been addressed and that a coherent policies are adopted to better inform decision-making regarding development and/or interventions at the property,
      2. Full operation of the management structure to articulate different levels of government and promote social inclusion in decision-making, so that the implementation of conservation and management endeavours formally includes community councils in the management strategy,
      3. Articulation of provisions made in the Management Plan with local and regional planning tools and development, when appropriate, of supporting municipal ordinances to ensure management policies are complied with,
      4. Development and implementation of a vehicular traffic strategy for the property,
      5. Implementation of comprehensive drainage system for the property to address vulnerability to flooding,
      6. Development and implementation of a strategy to secure adequate resources to support building maintenance and conservation, as well as continued use, by owners;
  7. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2015, a detailed report, including a 1-page executive summary, on the progress on the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session in 2015;
  8. Decides to retain Coro and its Port (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) on the List of World Heritage in Danger. 

Decision Adopted: 38 COM 8C.2

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-14/38.COM/7A and WHC-14/38.COM/7A.Add),
  2. Decides to retain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger: