Coro and its Port

• 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 communication from the State Party since 2007

• Considerable decay of materials and structures resulting from lack of comprehensive conservation and maintenance, and torrential rains in 2004 and 2005
• 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

a) Presidential signature of the PLINCODE (Plan Integral de Conservación y Desarrollo para Coro y La Vela), submitted to the authorities in August 2006;

b) Effective functioning of the management structure and institutional arrangements foreseen in the PLINCODE, with sufficient allocated resources;

c) Completion of comprehensive drainage systems as well as the rehabilitation of underground networks, public spaces, sidewalks and streets in the historical area;

d) Prioritized implementation of a comprehensive conservation plan. 

a) Obtain official approval of the PLINCODE at the presidential level;

b) Reinforce the Framework Agreement for Emergency Intervention in the area of Coro and La Vela, signed by the IPC, mayors of the municipalities of Miranda and the regional government on 14 February 2006;

c) Create a Council to assist the Technical Office (OTAE) to plan the investment of resources, and to formulate and revise intervention projects on the infrastructure, buildings and public spaces of the property;

d) Formulate and prioritize a comprehensive conservation plan to complement the existing PLINCODE by defining a precise course of action with intervention criteria and monitoring mechanisms to assess its effectiveness and implementation;

e) Strengthen capacity building for conservation and restoration through existing opportunities of workshops with the schools of conservation in La Vela and Coro;

f) Create awareness in the local community through exhibitions and community involvement.

a) The Presidential Commission was established in 2005 and the Framework Agreement with the local government was signed in February 2006.

b) A conservation plan was developed in 2007, and priority actions are currently being implemented (2008). Since PLINCODE has not been officially signed, the definitive timeframe has not been established. Following the Presidential signature to ensure its ratification, the necessary corrective mechanisms of PLINCODE can be fully implemented.  

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

The State Party did not submit a state of conservation report in 2009 and 2010, as requested by the World Heritage Committee at its 32nd (Quebec City, 2008) and 33rd (Seville, 2009) sessions respectively, despite official correspondence to the State Party in August and December 2009 and in January 2010. These letters have remained unanswered.

From 26 to 28 November 2009, the “Workshop on the preparation of the Retrospective Inventory and Retrospective Statements of Outstanding Universal Value (of the properties included on the World Heritage List) and an introduction to the Second Cycle of the Periodic Reporting for the Latin America and Caribbean Region” took place in Buenos Aires (Argentina). Participants were briefed on the future activities regarding the launching of the Second Cycle of the Periodic Reporting exercise for the Latin America and Caribbean Region. There was no cultural representative from Venezuela.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies remain deeply concerned about the lack of reporting over the past two years from the State Party, particularly in light of the site’s listing on the List of World Heritage in Danger and the state of conservation highlighted in past reports. Keeping in mind Article 6 of the World Heritage Convention which recognises that it is the duty of the international community as a whole to cooperate in the protection of World Heritage, the World Heritage Committee has a duty to explore all possible options for the benefit of the property within the framework of the World Heritage Convention. If the lack of communication persists, and no response is provided to the decisions of the World Heritage Committee including the absence of an invitation by the State Party for a reactive monitoring mission to assess the state of conservation of the property, the World Heritage Committee should explore at the highest political level all possible means to avoid the deletion of this property from the World Heritage List.