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

Coro and its Port

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Factors affecting the property in 2018*
  • 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
  • Management systems/management plan
  • Water (rain/water table)
  • 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 2018

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 2018
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2018**

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

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2018

On 1 February 2018, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/658/documents/, and responds to the matters raised by the World Heritage Committee in Decision 41 COM 7A.48, and to the revised corrective measures approved in Decision 38 COM 7A.23. The State Party provides the following information:

  • The proposals for redefining the property’s boundaries are still being studied in light of the elaboration of the Management Plan. The State Party notes that the expansion of both components’ buffer zones is desireable in order to incorporate other important buildings of heritage value in adjacent blocks. These areas are more heterogeneous and in a weaker state of conservation, but currently benefit from some conservation and restoration investments. The buffer zone extensions will be submitted at a later stage as a Minor Boundary Modification. A detailed description of the proposed buffer zone extensions is provided for both components;
  • Advances in the elaboration of the property’s Management Plan are detailed, which is being led by a Mixed Commission involving the relevant stakeholders, including community councils. The detailed diagnostic phase is almost complete, upon which the Plan’s proposal will be based. A database has been developed to analyze information collected on the state of conservation of approximately 600 buildings in the property’s two components, to aid in identifying vulnerabilities and appropriate actions to undertake. The Management Plan should be finalized and approved by March 2019 according to the basic timeline provided. The Management Plan is conceived of as a global programmatic document to not only strengthen the conservation and management of the property, but also contribute to the social and economic development of the local communities;
  • Draft versions of several chapters elaborated in the diagnostic phase of the Management Plan were submitted;
  • A Risk Plan for the property is mentioned as being developed with the Civil Defense, National Guard, and Fire Department;
  • Regarding the property’s drainage system, some cleaning and dismantling work was undertaken in December 2017. A Master Plan and diagnostic studies were produced in previous years. The substantial budget allocated for the drainage system in late 2017 is currently under review by the State authorities. A basic timeline for the drainage system’s construction from April to December 2018, developed by the Mixed Commission, was presented;
  • Basic information is provided on the majority of the corrective measures.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2018

It is recommended that the Committee commend the State Party on its continued commitment to improving the state of conservation and management of the property. It is clear that community councils, and the community at large, are integral actors in these processes, and benefit from a range of awareness-raising and capacity-building initiatives related to cultural heritage.

The redefinition of the property’s boundaries, which is still in the analysis stage, is critical in the framework of the Management Plan’s elaboration, and decision-making for the property’s conservation and management more broadly. It is therefore recommended that the Committee reiterate its request to the State Party to finalize a clear boundary definition proposal, with the assistance of ICOMOS, and submit a Minor Boundary Modification for the extension of the buffer zones, as a matter of priority.

The progress in the diagnostic phase of the Management Plan, and the draft chapters provided, demonstrate important advances in implementing this corrective measure. The State Party should be requested to finalize the Management Plan and incorporate the necessary strategic plans and actions to address all vulnerabilities in the property and to ensure its long-term sustainability in terms of conservation, management, resource allocation, and relevant socio-economic factors.

Regarding the implementation of an effective drainage system, it is noted that little progress has been achieved in the past year. Recognizing the previous completion of studies for the property’s drainage system, and that the budget for the project is currently under review, it is further recommended that the Committee urge the State Party to begin implementation of the proposed actions, according to a prioritized and costed timeline, and demonstrate that sufficient financial resources have been secured for the project.

While the information provided by the State Party demonstrates satisfactory advances in the implementation of many of the corrective measures, further information and actions are needed to ensure that the key issues previously identified as affecting the property have been adequately addressed. The State Party should also provide a detailed analysis on the progress towards achieving the Desired state of conservation for removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR), as adopted in Decision 38 COM 7A.23.

While the basic timelines for completing the Management Plan and constructing the drainage system are appreciated, it is also recommended that the Committee request the State Party to develop an updated and more detailed timeline for their implementation and for any other outstanding corrective measures, given that the additional two years’ timeframe noted in Decision 39 COM 7A.48 lapsed in 2017. The technical advice to be provided by ICOMOS in 2018 will assist in the completion of the remaining corrective measures, especially the elaboration of the Management Plan and the implementation of an effective drainage system.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2018
42 COM 7A.12
Coro and its Port (Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of) (C 658)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/18/42.COM/7A,
  2. Recalling Decision 41 COM 7A.27, adopted at its 41st session (Krakow, 2017),
  3. Commends the State Party on its continued commitment to improving the state of conservation and management of the property, and ensuring the broad participation of community councils and the communities at large in these processes;
  4. Taking note that the redefinition of the property’s boundaries is still in the analysis phase, requests the State Party to finalize a clear boundary definition proposal as a matter of priority, in cooperation with ICOMOS, and submit a Minor Boundary Modification, in accordance with Paragraphs 163-164 of the Operational Guidelines, for the extension of the buffer zones;
  5. Recognizes the advances in the diagnostic phase of the Management Plan’s elaboration, and also requests the State Party to complete the draft version of this Plan, and submit it to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies as soon as it becomes available;
  6. Urges the State Party to start implementation of a prioritized and costed plan for the property’s drainage system, and ensure that adequate financial resources are secured for its correct execution;
  7. Further requests the State Party to provide complete and clear information on the implementation status of the entire set of corrective measures, and a detailed analysis of the progress in achieving the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR);
  8. Given that the timeline adopted by Decision 38 COM 7A.23 has lapsed, also urges the State Party to provide updated and detailed timelines for the implementation of the remaining corrective measures;
  9. Encourages the State Party to take advantage of opportunities for technical assistance, guided by ICOMOS, in addressing the above issues with the aim of advancing the implementation of the outstanding corrective measures;
  10. Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2019, 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 43rd session in 2019;
  11. Decides to retain Coro and its Port (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
42 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/18/42.COM/7A, WHC/18/42.COM/7A.Add and WHC/18/42.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 42 COM 7A.1)
  • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 42 COM 7A.2)
  • Austria, Historic Centre of Vienna (Decision 42 COM 7A.5)
  • Bolivia (Plurinational State of), City of Potosí (Decision 42 COM 7A.8)
  • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.45)
  • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 42 COM 7A.9)
  • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 42 COM 7A.46)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.47)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.48)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 42 COM 7A.49)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.50)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.51)
  • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 42 COM 7A.17)
  • Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 42 COM 7A.44)
  • Indonesia, Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Decision 42 COM 7A.40)
  • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 42 COM 7A.18)
  • Iraq, Hatra (Decision 42 COM 7A.19)
  • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 42 COM 7A.20)
  • Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (site proposed by Jordan) (Decision 42 COM 7A.21)
  • Libya, Archaeological Site of Cyrene (Decision 42 COM 7A.22)
  • Libya, Archaeological Site of Leptis Magna (Decision 42 COM 7A.23)
  • Libya, Archaeological Site of Sabratha (Decision 42 COM 7A.24)
  • Libya, Old Town of Ghadamès (Decision 42 COM 7A.25)
  • Libya, Rock-Art Sites of Tadrart Acacus (Decision 42 COM 7A.26)
  • Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 42 COM 7A.53)
  • Mali, Old Towns of Djenné (Decision 42 COM 7A.13)
  • Mali, Timbuktu (Decision 42 COM 7A.14)
  • Mali, Tomb of Askia (Decision 42 COM 7A.15)
  • Micronesia (Federated States of), Nan Madol: Ceremonial Centre of Eastern Micronesia (Decision 42 COM 7A.3)
  • Niger, Aïr and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 42 COM 7A.54)
  • Palestine, Birthplace of Jesus: Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage Route, Bethlehem (Decision 42 COM 7A.27)
  • Palestine, Palestine: Land of Olives and Vines – Cultural Landscape of Southern Jerusalem, Battir (Decision 42 COM 7A.29)
  • Palestine, Hebron/Al-Khalil Old Town (Decision 42 COM 7A.28)
  • Panama, Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Decision 42 COM 7A.10)
  • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 42 COM 7A.11)
  • Senegal, Niokolo-Koba National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.55)
  • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 42 COM 7A.6)
  • Solomon Islands, East Rennell (Decision 42 COM 7A.41)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Aleppo (Decision 42 COM 7A.30)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Bosra (Decision 42 COM 7A.31)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Damascus (Decision 42 COM 7A.32)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient Villages of Northern Syria (Decision 42 COM 7A.33)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Salah El-Din (Decision 42 COM 7A.34)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Site of Palmyra (Decision 42 COM 7A.35)
  • Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 42 COM 7A.16)
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (Decision 42 COM 7A.7)
  • United Republic of Tanzania, Selous Game Reserve (Decision 42 COM 7A.56)
  • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 42 COM 7A.42)
  • Uzbekistan, Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Decision 42 COM 7A.4)
  • Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Coro and its Port (Decision 42 COM 7A.12)
  • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 42 COM 7A.37)
  • Yemen, Old City of Sana’a (Decision 42 COM 7A.38)
  • Yemen, Old Walled City of Shibam (Decision 42 COM 7A.39)
Draft Decision: 42 COM 7A.12

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/18/42.COM/7A,
  2. Recalling Decision 41 COM 7A.27, adopted at its 41st session (Krakow, 2017),
  3. Commends the State Party on its continued commitment to improving the state of conservation and management of the property, and ensuring the broad participation of community councils and the communities at large in these processes;
  4. Taking note that the redefinition of the property’s boundaries is still in the analysis phase, requests the State Party to finalize a clear boundary definition proposal as a matter of priority, in cooperation with ICOMOS, and submit a Minor Boundary Modification, in accordance with Paragraphs 163-164 of the Operational Guidelines, for the extension of the buffer zones;
  5. Recognizes the advances in the diagnostic phase of the Management Plan’s elaboration, and also requests the State Party to complete the draft version of this Plan, and submit it to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies as soon as it becomes available;
  6. Urges the State Party to start implementation of a prioritized and costed plan for the property’s drainage system, and ensure that adequate financial resources are secured for its correct execution;
  7. Further requests the State Party to provide complete and clear information on the implementation status of the entire set of corrective measures, and a detailed analysis of the progress in achieving the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR);
  8. Given that the timeline adopted by Decision 38 COM 7A.23 has lapsed, also urges the State Party to provide updated and detailed timelines for the implementation of the remaining corrective measures;
  9. Encourages the State Party to take advantage of opportunities for technical assistance, guided by ICOMOS, in addressing the above issues with the aim of advancing the implementation of the outstanding corrective measures;
  10. Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2019, 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 43rd session in 2019;
  11. Decides to retain Coro and its Port (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Report year: 2018
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Date of Inscription: 1993
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iv)(v)
Danger List (dates): 2005-present
Documents examined by the Committee
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2018) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 42COM (2018)
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