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

• Fragile state of the property and accelerated degradation by environmental factors, lack of maintenance and limited conservation planning
• Erosion
• Lack of established boundaries and buffer zone
• Absence of a conservation and management plan
• Encroachments and urban pressure
• Tourism pressure (particularly at Portobelo)
• Insufficient legislation for the preservation of built heritage and regulations combining the two components of the property

• Fragile state of the property and accelerated degradation by environmental factors, lack of maintenance and limited conservation planning
• Erosion
• Lack of established boundaries and buffer zone
• Absence of a conservation and management plan
• Encroachments and urban pressure
• Tourism pressure (particularly at Portobelo)
• Insufficient legislation for the preservation of built heritage and regulations combining the two components of the property

Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4763

Adopted, see https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4763

On 30 January 2015, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/135/documents/ 

2014 was an election year in the Republic of Panama and a period of administrative change in government administration, including heads of the public entities that manage historical heritage. This caused a low execution rate of conservation works on the site. The remaining yearly budget assigned for the execution of the emergency plan was found insufficient. The new director and deputy director in the National Direction of Historical Heritage had to familiarize themselves with the case but reached conclusions similar to those indicated in the report of the ICOMOS Advisory Mission of February 2014.

In response to the seven points of paragraph 5 of Decision 38 COM 7A.20, the State Party reports:

• The Law 30 of 18 November, 2014 provides support to the Patronato de Portobelo y San Lorenzo with funds from the government for the maintenance, conservation and restoration of the property.
• Collaboration is being sought with the Patronato de Panama Viejo for advice on management arrangements and training of staff.
• The clarification of the boundaries of the component parts of the property has not presented significant progress in 2014.
• The preparation of the Portobelo’s District Territorial Plan is in its final stage, as developed by the Ministry of Housing. Its completion is expected by the end of 2015.
• Technical assistance for the implementation of the Emergency Plan is provided by the University of Alcalá de Henares, Spain.
• The new Territorial Plan of Portobelo contemplates the implementation of infrastructure planning and environmental improvement of the site. It includes the construction of new sewers, and a new system of garbage disposal.
• The National Directorate of Heritage has in its archives technical studies conducted at the property since the decade of 1980. In more recent years there have been soil studies in the area of the fortifications of Santiago, San Fernando, San Geronimo and the San Lorenzo Castle Fort. A Risk Assessment Study was developed in 2013, as well as a photogrammetric survey on all the cannons found in the area of the fortifications in the Portobelo Bay and in the Castle Fort of San Lorenzo. It is expected that in 2015, the National Directorate will reinforce its cooperation with the Patronato de Portobelo y San Lorenzo to strengthen management capacities at the property.

The adoption of the UNESCO World Heritage Management Plan (September 2013) and the Emergency Plan (March 2014) were crucial steps forward and constitute appropriate frameworks for action. The endorsement by the new administration of these plans and earlier recommendations, and commitment to their implementation are welcomed. However, overall there are very serious delays in the implementation of the corrective measures and timeframe adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012) and funding for the implementation of these measures, including for the Emergency Plan and the Management Plan, remains insufficient.

As to the replies provided by the State Party on the seven points of paragraph 5 of Decision 38 COM 7A.20, it is observed that:

• While the National Institute for Culture (INAC) is responsible for the national cultural heritage (Law 14, 1982), the management of the site was entrusted to the Patronato de Portobelo y San Lorenzo. Law 30 (2014) defines that a yearly budget will be allocated to the Patronato for its administration, operation and activities. The updating of legislative and regulatory measures and definition of the functions of the Patronato remains necessary.

• According to the ICOMOS Advisory Mission of 2014, the Patronato counts with one architect and four workers, but no technical office with adequate capacities, has been established at the site level. The strengthening of management arrangements and the creation of a technical office remain pending.
• No significant progress on the definition of the boundaries is reported.
• The Territorial Plan for Portobelo is expected to be completed by the end of 2015. An analysis of this plan should be undertaken to assess if it meets the requirements defined in the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR).
• The national (Patronato Panama Viejo) and international (Universidad de Alcalá de Henares) cooperation should be welcomed.
• Once the Territorial Plan is finalized by the end of 2015, an analysis should be undertaken to assess in how far it will respond to the recommendation regarding environmental degradation and deficiencies in infrastructure services that are impacting cultural and natural heritage assets.
• Clarification should be provided if available studies and documentation are sufficient in response to the recommendation on studies on deterioration processes.

While the State Party presents detailed reports on the activities for conservation and consolidation and for the maintenance of green areas undertaken in 2014, no clearly established and detailed work plans, timeframes and budgets have been presented for the implementation of the corrective measures adopted by the World Heritage Committee at the time of the inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. Progress in the implementation of the corrective measures scheduled for year 1 (up to September 2013), is highly insufficient and it may be reasonably expected that the measures for the two-three year period (scheduled for conclusion by September 2015) will be equally seriously delayed.

The ICOMOS Advisory Mission of February 2014 made a comprehensive set of recommendations and highlighted the fast rate of decay of the historic fabric that continued to threaten the integrity and authenticity of the attributes that convey the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and there remains very serious concern that under the present conditions the state of conservation may further deteriorate.

It is recommended that the Committee urge the State Party to draw up a strategy, detailed work plans, timeframes and budgets for the full implementation of the corrective measures within a three-year period, with due consideration of the set of recommendations of the 2014 Advisory Mission; and that the Committee retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.