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 2019*
  • 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 2019

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 2019
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2019**

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; July 2018: ICOMOS Advisory mission

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2019

An ICOMOS Advisory mission visited the property in July 2018 (mission report available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/658/documents/). Subsequently, on 1 February 2019, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, also available at the above-mentioned link, informing the following:

  • The Advisory mission assisted the State Party to define the updated buffer zone proposal for both Coro and La Vela, which will be reflected in the actions and strategies of the Management Plan that is under development. Several maps that outline the proposed buffer zones are annexed to the State Party report. In the case of Coro, the proposed buffer zone represents an increased area as compared with the property’s existing map; meanwhile, the redefinition in La Vela represents a decrease in overall area but includes the boardwalk to protect the coastal zone;
  • The Mixed Commission, composed of the Cultural Heritage Institute, the State of Falcon, the mayors of the municipalities, relevant bodies and representatives of the communities, continues to be the property’s central management body and is responsible for elaborating the Management Plan, as well as addressing the corrective measures. A law proposing the formalization of the Mixed Commission is currently under consideration by the Falcon state government. The State Party also reports advances in the preparation of several components to be included in the Management Plan, which is expected to be completed and validated by all relevant actors by the end of 2021;
  • The plan for a drainage system was presented to the Advisory mission, and funds have been requested from the national government in 2019, currently pending approval, to implement three key actions from 2019 to 2021. On this topic, there has been coordination between the different municipal and management authorities, and constant assistance, monitoring and controls throughout the year, and especially during heavy rain periods. An annexed report on “Buildings Affected in Coro and La Vela by Rains, October 2018” provides an inventory of 60 buildings in Coro and 37 in La Vela (majority inhabited) noting the specific damages and as being in a state of “emergency” or “poor state”;
  • Some of the other corrective measures are addressed throughout the report and the property’s removal from the List of World Heritage in Danger is discussed in general terms;
  • The timeline for completion of the corrective measures is proposed as 2 years from the time of the report (2019-2021).
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2019

On the basis of the ICOMOS Advisory mission’s report and the State Party’s report, it is clear that the national and municipal authorities remain committed to the protection of the property. The level of involvement of local communities and the many alliances formed with governmental and academic institutions demonstrates a highly participative approach to the property’s use and protection. The many cultural and educational initiatives implemented to build awareness of the heritage value of the property, particularly among youth, are particularly noteworthy. However, while over the past years, a number of restoration and maintenance programmes have been carried out, the abandonment and deterioration of domestic structures remains a main threat to the property. Heavy rains like the ones in 2018 continue to seriously affect many traditional buildings. The lack of maintenance of public spaces is also noticeable.

The Advisory mission report evidences that since the 2015 ICOMOS Advisory mission there has not been significant progress in implementing the corrective measures adopted in 2014 (Decision 38 COM 7A.23). It is, therefore, imperative that the State Party continue its efforts to address these outstanding corrective measures, in addition to the three main issues of critical importance to guarantee the protection of the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV): the definition and formalization of the buffer zones, the development of the Management Plan, and the implementation of an adequate drainage system.

Regarding the proposal for definition of buffer zones, it is noted that the several maps submitted by the State Party deviate from those established during the 2018 Advisory mission. It is recommended that the Committee urge the State Party to (i) finalize the buffer zone proposal at the national level according to the boundaries and guidelines agreed upon during the 2018 mission, (ii) ensure that the property’s regulatory measures are reviewed and adapted accordingly, and incorporated into the new Management Plan, and (iii) submit a Minor Boundary Modification to formalize this redefinition of buffer zones.

While the State Party is advancing with the diagnostic phase of the Management Plan, the actual draft has not yet been submitted. The Advisory mission provides several specific recommendations on this issue, which should be incorporated in the drafting process. The Mixed Commission has proven to operate as an effective management unit that assures an adequate level of cooperation of institutions at the three levels of government and the participation of the community councils; however, the formalization of its status as the official management authority remains pending. The elaboration of a risk preparation plan has not progressed over the past years.

Regarding the property’s drainage system, it is clear that the State Party continues to regard this issue as of critical importance, and has conducted several coordination meetings and monitoring activities in this regard. However, the full extent of the entire drainage system project and its timeline are not clearly outlined. Funds to implement the drainage system need to be secured, and the project urgently implemented to address one of the key threats to the property.

The State Party does not provide a comprehensive assessment of the implementation of the corrective measures, and does not clearly address its progress in achieving the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR). It is noted that the State Party estimates that the Management Plan will be finalized by the end of 2021, but it has only provided a very general indication on the timeline for implementation of all remaining corrective measures during the years 2019-2021.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2019
43 COM 7A.52
Coro and its Port (Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of) (C 658)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/19/43.COM/7A,
  2. Recalling Decision 42 COM 7A.12, adopted at its 42nd session (Manama, 2018),
  3. Commends the State Party on its continued efforts to assure the property’s adequate conservation and management through a participatory approach, including the broad involvement of local communities, youth, and diverse institutional alliances;
  4. Takes note with regret of the conclusion of the 2018 ICOMOS Advisory mission that several corrective measures adopted by Decision 38 COM 7A.23 have not been fully implemented, and requests the State Party to implement the mission’s detailed recommendations in this regard;
  5. Also requests the State Party to provide complete information on the status of each corrective measure in its next state of conservation report, including a detailed timeline for the implementation of all pending corrective measures;
  6. Also takes note of the different maps submitted regarding the proposed redefinition of the buffer zones in Coro and La Vela, and further requests the State Party to:
    1. Formalize the proposal in accordance with the boundaries and guidelines agreed upon during the 2018 mission,
    2. Update the applicable regulatory measures and incorporate the new buffer zones into the Management Plan,
    3. Submit a Minor Boundary Modification, in accordance with Paragraphs 163-164 of the Operational Guidelines;
  7. Reiterates its request that the draft Management Plan be finalized and submitted to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies as soon as possible;
  8. Noting that regular heavy rains continue to have a serious impact on the property’s ensemble of traditional buildings, urges once again the State Party to begin the implementation of a prioritized and costed plan for property’s drainage system and secure adequate financial resources in this regard;
  9. Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2020, 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 44th session in 2020;
  10. Decides to retain Coro and its Port (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
43 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/19/43.COM/7A, WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add, WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add.2, WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add.3 and WHC/19/43.COM/7A.Add.3.Corr),
  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 43 COM 7A.41)
  • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision43 COM 7A.42)
  • Austria, Historic Centre of Vienna (Decision 43 COM 7A.45)
  • Bolivia (Plurinational State of), City of Potosí (Decision 43 COM 7A.48)
  • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.5)
  • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 43 COM 7A.6)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.7)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.8)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 43 COM 7A.9)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.10)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.11)
  • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 43 COM 7A.17)
  • Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 43 COM 7A.4)
  • Indonesia, Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Decision 43 COM 7A.1)
  • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 43 COM 7A.18)
  • Iraq, Hatra (Decision 43 COM 7A.19)
  • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 43 COM 7A.20)
  • Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (site proposed by Jordan) (Decision 43 COM 7A.22)
  • Kenya, Lake Turkana National Parks (Decision 43 COM 7A.12)
  • Libya, Archaeological Site of Cyrene (Decision 43 COM 7A.23)
  • Libya, Archaeological Site of Leptis Magna (Decision 43 COM 7A.24)
  • Libya, Archaeological Site of Sabratha (Decision 43 COM 7A.25)
  • Libya, Old Town of Ghadamès (Decision 43 COM 7A.26)
  • Libya, Rock-Art Sites of Tadrart Acacus (Decision 43 COM 7A.27)
  • Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 43 COM 7A.13)
  • Mali, Old Towns of Djenné (Decision 43 COM 7A.53)
  • Mali, Timbuktu (Decision 43 COM 7A.54)
  • Mali, Tomb of Askia (Decision 43 COM 7A.55)
  • Micronesia (Federated States of), Nan Madol: Ceremonial Centre of Eastern Micronesia (Decision 43 COM 7A.43)
  • Niger, Aïr and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 43 COM 7A.14)
  • Palestine, Palestine: Land of Olives and Vines – Cultural Landscape of Southern Jerusalem, Battir (Decision 43 COM 7A.30)
  • Palestine, Hebron/Al-Khalil Old Town (Decision 43 COM 7A.29)
  • Panama, Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Decision 43 COM 7A.50)
  • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 43 COM 7A.51)
  • Senegal, Niokolo-Koba National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.15)
  • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 43 COM 7A.46)
  • Solomon Islands, East Rennell (Decision 43 COM 7A.2)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Aleppo (Decision 43 COM 7A.31)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Bosra (Decision 43 COM 7A.32)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Damascus (Decision 43 COM 7A.33)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient Villages of Northern Syria (Decision 43 COM 7A.34)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Salah El-Din (Decision 43 COM 7A.35)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Site of Palmyra (Decision 43 COM 7A.36)
  • Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 43 COM 7A.56)
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (Decision 43 COM 7A.47)
  • United Republic of Tanzania, Selous Game Reserve (Decision 43 COM 7A.16)
  • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 43 COM 7A.3)
  • Uzbekistan, Historic Centre of Shakhrisyabz (Decision 43 COM 7A.44)
  • Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Coro and its Port (Decision 43 COM 7A.52)
  • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 43 COM 7A.38)
  • Yemen, Old City of Sana’a (Decision 43 COM 7A.39)
  • Yemen, Old Walled City of Shibam (Decision 43 COM 7A.40)
Draft Decision: 43 COM 7A.52

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/19/43.COM/7A,
  2. Recalling Decision 42 COM 7A.12, adopted at its 42nd session (Manama, 2018),
  3. Commends the State Party on its continued efforts to assure the property’s adequate conservation and management through a participatory approach, including the broad involvement of local communities, youth, and diverse institutional alliances;
  4. Takes note with regret of the conclusion of the 2018 ICOMOS Advisory mission that several corrective measures adopted by Decision 38 COM 7A.23 have not been fully implemented, and requests the State Party to implement the mission’s detailed recommendations in this regard;
  5. Also requests the State Party to provide complete information on the status of each corrective measure in its next state of conservation report, including a detailed timeline for the implementation of all pending corrective measures;
  6. Also takes note of the different maps submitted regarding the proposed redefinition of the buffer zones in Coro and La Vela, and further requests the State Party to:
    1. Formalize the proposal in accordance with the boundaries and guidelines agreed upon during the 2018 mission,
    2. Update the applicable regulatory measures and incorporate the new buffer zones into the Management Plan,
    3. Submit a Minor Boundary Modification, in accordance with Paragraphs 163-164 of the Operational Guidelines;
  7. Reiterates its request that the draft Management Plan be finalized and submitted to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies as soon as possible;
  8. Noting that regular heavy rains continue to have a serious impact on the property’s ensemble of traditional buildings, urges once again the State Party to begin the implementation of a prioritized and costed plan for property’s drainage system and secure adequate financial resources in this regard;
  9. Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2020, 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 44th session in 2020;
  10. Decides to retain Coro and its Port (Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Report year: 2019
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 (2019) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 43COM (2019)
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