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

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
State of Conservation Coro and its Port 2017

Coro and its Port

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Factors affecting the property in 2017*
  • Flooding
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Water (rain/water table)
  • Other Threats:

    Serious deterioration of materials and structure; Deterioration of the architectural and urban coherence and integrity of the property

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Serious deterioration of materials and structures
  • Deterioration of the architectural and urban coherence and integrity of the property
  • Lack of adequate management, planning and conservation mechanisms
  • Absence of detailed and technical information on the state of conservation of the property since 2007
  • Flooding and water damage
Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
  • Considerable decay of materials and structures resulting from lack of comprehensive conservation and maintenance, and torrential rains in 2004, 2005 and 2010
  • Deterioration of architectural and urban coherence compromising the integrity and authenticity of the property
  • Lack of adequate and efficient management, planning and conservation mechanisms, and institutional arrangements
Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger

Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5965 

Corrective Measures for the property

Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5965

Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures
Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/5965;
Updated in 2015: see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6263
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 2017

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

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2017
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2017**

December 2003 and September 2006: World Heritage Centre missions to assessment of the state of conservation; July 2002, April 2005, May 2008 and February 2011: Joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring missions; October 2015: ICOMOS Advisory mission

2015 Report on the ICOMOS Advisory Mission to Coro and its Port (C 658), 12-16 October 2015
2008 Estado de Conservación de Coro y su Puerto, Venezuela, sitio del Patrimonio Mundial. Reporte de la tercera Misión ...
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2017

On 31 January 2017, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/658/documents/. Previously it had also submitted a Progress Report in Spanish on 7 December 2016. The reports respond to the matters raised by the World Heritage Committee in Decision 40 COM 7A.5, as well as to the set of revised corrective measures approved in Decision 38 COM 7A.23. The State Party provides the following information:

  • A description and maps detailing preliminary proposals for the extension of the boundaries of the World Heritage property and buffer zones for both components of the property, noting that additional studies are needed for the submission of a Minor Boundary Modification;
  • Information is provided on several conservation activities, and the revitalization of important buildings and spaces for sustainable public use. It includes new diagnostic research tools and a timeline to complete a detailed state of conservation inventory for all buildings of heritage value in the property;
  • Extensive cooperation and collaboration linkages have been established between the National Institute for Cultural Heritage (IPC), the management authority (OPEDAP), other State institutions and authorities, and Community Councils that participate in and support the property’s conservation;
  • Information is also included on the successful transmission of traditional know-how through a social enterprise established to preserve traditional mud construction techniques in the property’s restoration efforts. Furthermore, a great number of awareness and capacity-building workshops and other activities have been conducted in the communities;
  • The various legal tools at the national, state, and local levels related to heritage governance and conservation are detailed. Recent ordinances issued by the relevant Municipalities regulate the use, functions and conservation approaches of buildings in the property. These instruments are crucial in addressing the matter of abandoned and neglected properties of heritage value;
  • It also presents substantial information on completed diagnostic tests and possible solutions to improve the drainage system in both property components.

The State Party furthermore reports advances on the Management Plan’s elaboration, including the development of a methodological schema to guide the process, the leadership provided by a Mixed Commission, and the participation of various institutional and community actors.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2017

The information provided by the State Party demonstrates in clear terms its commitment at all levels of government and the wide participation of the community in the property’s ongoing management and conservation efforts.  

It is recommended that the Committee recognize the remarkable progress of the State Party in addressing the corrective measures needed to remove the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger and request the State Party to provide further analysis on the situation with regard to the implementation of the Desired state of conservation, particularly in conservation and restoration interventions, integration of traditional know-how and support for capacity building, and sustainable development strategies and public use plans in the two communities. It is also recommended that the Committee request the State Party to establish a new timeline for the implementation of the corrective measures, given the State Party’s recognition that the previously established timeline updated in 2015 (Decision 39 COM 7A.48) will not be achieved.

Considering the preliminary proposal submitted by the State Party for extending the property’s boundaries, it is recommended that consideration be given as to whether these proposals fall within the Minor Boundary Modification process as defined in the Operational Guidelines or if this is more likely to require a process for a significant boundary modification. It is recommended that the Committee therefore request the State Party to develop and finalize a clear boundary definition strategy in a timely manner and with the assistance of ICOMOS, considering its importance for alignment with the Management Plan and continued implementation of all other corrective measures.

The main outstanding corrective measures to address are still the preparation of a Management Plan that includes a disaster risk preparedness plan, and the lack of a suitable drainage system to prevent further material damage to the property.  

Regarding the Management Plan, the State Party should clearly articulate the methodology and timeframe for its elaboration and approval. In doing so, it should explain the coherence between the new inventory and timeline for collecting state of conservation information on heritage buildings outlined in the report, and the methodological schema for the Management Plan’s elaboration included in the Progress Report. It is also recommended that the Committee reiterate the need to submit the completed disaster risk management plan as part of the Management Plan.

Recognizing the advancement of technical studies and diagnoses for the property’s drainage system, it is further recommended that the Committee urge the State Party to provide plans for the implementation of the proposed solutions, including a prioritized timeline, and demonstrate that sufficient financial resources have been secured for the project.

Furthermore, regarding the many advancements in addressing the corrective measures, as noted by the 2015 ICOMOS Advisory mission and in the Committee’s last decision, it is recommended that the State Party be requested to provide explicit, clear, and complete information on all relevant details regarding the status of implementation of all corrective measures, following the recommendations of the 2015 ICOMOS Advisory mission.

Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2017
41 COM 7A.27
Coro and its Port (Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of) (C 658)
Decision: 41 COM 7A.27

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/17/41.COM/7A,
  2. Recalling Decision 40 COM 7A.5, adopted at its 40th session (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016),
  3. Appreciates the continued efforts by the State Party in implementing the corrective measures adopted in Decision 38 COM 7A.23, and recognizes the steady progress in conservation and management of both public and private structures within the property;
  4. Also appreciates the inclusion of Community Councils and the two communities at large as integral participants in the property’s conservation and management efforts, and commends the State Party on its initiatives for capacity building and transmission of traditional know-how for the sustainable development and use of the property;
  5. Notes that the State Party requires additional time for the implementation of the corrective measures, as updated in Decision 39 COM 7A.48, and therefore requests the establishment of a new detailed timeframe for the implementation of the outstanding corrective measures;
  6. Also notes the preliminary proposal submitted by the State Party to redefine the property’s boundaries and buffer zones, and also requests the State Party to work with ICOMOS to consider options for the redefinition of the property’s boundaries as a matter of priority, considering its primacy for continued management and conservation efforts;
  7. Also urges the State Party to finalize and submit the property’s Management Plan, including the disaster risk management plan, taking into account the definition of the property’s boundaries;
  8. Recognizing the advancements in diagnosing and proposing potential solutions for the property’s drainage system, further urges the State Party to develop a prioritized and costed plan to begin the implementation of these solutions;
  9. Further requests the State Party to provide, as noted in the recommendations of the 2015 ICOMOS Advisory mission report, clear and comprehensive information on the progress towards the full implementation of the entire set of corrective measures;
  10. Considers that once the State Party has resolved the boundary definition process, and has demonstrated significant progress in implementing the Management Plan and an adequate drainage system, an assessment could then be made to determine whether the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) has been reached;
  11. Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2018, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 42nd session in 2018;
  12. Decides to retain Coro and its Port (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Read more
41 COM 8C.2
Update of the List of World Heritage in Danger (Retained Properties)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC/17/41.COM/7A, WHC/17/41.COM/7A.Add and WHC/17/41.COM/7A.Add.2),
  2. Decides to retain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:
    • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 41 COM 7A.54)
    • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 41 COM 7A.55)
    • Belize, Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Decision 41 COM 7A.2)
    • Bolivia (Plurinational State of), City of Potosí (Decision 41 COM 7A.23)
    • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 41 COM 7A.4)
    • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 41 COM 7A.24)
    • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 41 COM 7A.6)
    • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 41 COM 7A.7)
    • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 41 COM 7A.8)
    • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 41 COM 7A.9)
    • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 41 COM 7A.10)
    • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 41 COM 7A.11)
    • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 41 COM 7A.32)
    • Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 41 COM 7A.3)
    • Indonesia, Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Decision 41 COM 7A.18)
    • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 41 COM 7A.33)
    • Iraq, Hatra (Decision 41 COM 7A.34)
    • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 41 COM 7A.35)
    • Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (site proposed by Jordan) (Decision 41 COM 7A.36)
    • Libya, Archaeological Site of Cyrene (Decision 41 COM 7A.37)
    • Libya, Archaeological Site of Leptis Magna (Decision 41 COM 7A.38)
    • Libya, Archaeological Site of Sabratha (Decision 41 COM 7A.39)
    • Libya, Old Town of Ghadamès (Decision 41 COM 7A.40)
    • Libya, Rock-Art Sites of Tadrart Acacus (Decision 41 COM 7A.41)
    • Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 41 COM 7A.14)
    • Mali, Old Towns of Djenné (Decision 41 COM 7A.28)
    • Mali, Timbuktu (Decision 41 COM 7A.29)
    • Mali, Tomb of Askia (Decision 41 COM 7A.30)
    • Micronesia (Federated States of), Nan Madol: Ceremonial Centre of Eastern Micronesia (Decision 41 COM 7A.56)
    • Niger, Aïr and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 41 COM 7A.15)
    • Palestine, Birthplace of Jesus: Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage Route, Bethlehem (Decision 41 COM 7A.42)
    • Palestine, Palestine: Land of Olives and Vines – Cultural Landscape of Southern Jerusalem, Battir (Decision 41 COM 7A.43)
    • Panama, Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Decision 41 COM 7A.25)
    • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 41 COM 7A.26)
    • Senegal, Niokolo-Koba National Park (Decision 41 COM 7A.16)
    • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 41 COM 7A.21)
    • Solomon Islands, East Rennell (Decision 41 COM 7A.19)
    • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Aleppo (Decision 41 COM 7A.44)
    • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Bosra (Decision 41 COM 7A.45)
    • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Damascus (Decision 41 COM 7A.46)
    • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient Villages of Northern Syria (Decision 41 COM 7A.47)
    • Syrian Arab Republic, Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Salah El-Din (Decision 41 COM 7A.48)
    • Syrian Arab Republic, Site of Palmyra (Decision 41 COM 7A.49)
    • Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 41 COM 7A.31)
    • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (Decision 41 COM 7A.22)
    • United Republic of Tanzania, Selous Game Reserve (Decision 41 COM 7A.17)
    • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 41 COM 7A.1)
    • Uzbekistan, Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Decision 41 COM 7A.57)
    • Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Coro and its Port (Decision 41 COM 7A.27)
    • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 41 COM 7A.51)
    • Yemen, Old City of Sana’a (Decision 41 COM 7A.52)
    • Yemen, Old Walled City of Shibam (Decision 41 COM 7A.53)
      Read more
      Draft Decision: 41 COM 7A.27

      The World Heritage Committee,

      1. Having examined Document WHC/17/41.COM/7A,
      2. Recalling Decision 40 COM 7A.5, adopted at its 40th session (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016),
      3. Appreciates the continued efforts by the State Party in implementing the corrective measures adopted in Decision 38 COM 7A.23, and recognizes the steady progress in conservation and management of both public and private structures within the property;
      4. Also appreciates the inclusion of Community Councils and the two communities at large as integral participants in the property’s conservation and management efforts, and commends the State Party on its initiatives for capacity building and transmission of traditional know-how for the sustainable development and use of the property;
      5. Notes that the State Party requires additional time for the implementation of the corrective measures, as updated in Decision 39 COM 7A.48, and therefore requests the establishment of a new detailed timeframe for the implementation of the outstanding corrective measures;
      6. Also note the preliminary proposal submitted by the State Party to redefine the property’s boundaries and buffer zones and also requests the State Party to work with ICOMOS to consider options for the redefinition of the property’s boundaries as a matter of priority, considering its primacy for continued management and conservation efforts;
      7. Also urges the State Party to finalize and submit the property’s Management Plan, including the disaster risk management plan, taking into account the definition of the property’s boundaries;
      8. Recognizing the advancements in diagnosing and proposing potential solutions for the property’s drainage system, further urges the State Party to develop a prioritized and costed plan to begin the implementation of these solutions;
      9. Further requests the State Party to provide, as noted in the recommendations of the 2015 ICOMOS Advisory mission report, clear and comprehensive information on the progress towards the full implementation of the entire set of corrective measures;
      10. Considers that once the State Party has resolved the boundary definition process, and has demonstrated significant progress in implementing the Management Plan and an adequate drainage system, an assessment could then be made to determine whether the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) has been reached;
      11. Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2018, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 42nd session in 2018;
      12. Decides to retain Coro and its Port (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
      Previous 2016 Next 2018
      Report year: 2017
      Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
      Date of Inscription: 1993
      Category: Cultural
      Criteria: (iv)(v)
      Danger List (dates): 2005-present
      Documents examined by the Committee
      WHC/17/41.COM/7A
      SOC Report by the State Party
      Report (2017) .pdf
      arrow_circle_right 41COM (2017)
      Exports
      Previous 2016 Next 2018

      * : 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