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 2010*
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Other Threats:

    Serious deterioration of materials and structures ; Deterioration of the architectural and urban coherence and integrity of the property ; Absence of communication from the State Party since 2007

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 communication from the State Party since 2007
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 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
Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger

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. 

Corrective Measures for the property

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.

Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures

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.  

UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 2010

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. 

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2010
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2010**

December 2003: Roundtable in conservation and management; September 2006: Evaluation of the state of conservation Mission; July-August 2002, April 2005 and May 2008: Joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring missions 

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2010

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.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2010
34 COM 7A.31
Coro and its Port (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) (C 658)

 The World Heritage Committee,

 1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7A.Add,

 2. Recalling Decision33 COM 7A.30, adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009),

 3. Regrets that the State Party did not submit the required state of conservation report for the second consecutive year in spite of the requests made by the World Heritage Committee;

 4. Takes note of the letter sent to the World Heritage Centre on 20 July 2010 informing of the decision to set up a new management structure, in full coherence with the National Constitution and the Organic Law of Public Administration in force;

5. Requests the State Party to inform the World Heritage Committee of the official approval of the new management tool by the relevant authorities, and subsequently submit the new management plan and the related measures to the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies;

6. Also requests the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to the property to assess the progress made in the implementation of the corrective measures aimed at achieving the Desired State of Conservation, and to collaborate with the State Party in finalizing the property's Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value;

7. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2011, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011;

8. Decides to retain Coro and its Port (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

34 COM 8C.2
Establishment of the World Heritage List in Danger (Retained Properties)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Following the examination of the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC-10/34.COM/7A, WHC-10/34.COM/7A.Add and WHC-10/34.COM/7A.Add.2),

2. Decides to retain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:

  • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 34 COM 7A.22)
  • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 34 COM 7A.23)
  • Belize, Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Decision 34 COM 7A.13)
  • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.1)
  • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 34 COM 7A.29)
  • Colombia, Los Katios National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.14)
  • Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.2)
  • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 34 COM 7A.3)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Virunga National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.4)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.5)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Garamba National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.6)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo Salonga National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.7)
  • Democratic Rep. of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 34 COM 7A.8)
  • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 34 COM 7A.17)
  • Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.9)
  • Georgia, Historical Monuments of Mtskheta (Decision 34 COM 7A.27)
  • India, Manas Wildlife Sanctuary (Decision 34 COM 7A.12)
  • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 34 COM 7A.18)
  • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 34 COM 7A.19)
  • Islamic Republic of Iran, Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Decision 34 COM 7A.24)
  • Jerusalem, Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (Decision 34 COM 7A.20)
  • Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 34 COM 7A.10)
  • Pakistan, Fort and Shalamar Gardens in Lahore (Decision 34 COM 7A.25)
  • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 34 COM 7A.30)
  • Philippines, Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Decision 34 COM 7A.26)
  • Senegal, Niokolo Koba National Park (Decision 34 COM 7A.11)
  • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 34 COM 7A.28)
  • United Republic of Tanzania, Ruins of Kilwa Kisiwani and Ruins of Songo Mnara (Decision 34 COM 7A.16)
  • Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 34 COM 7A.31)
  • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 34 COM 7A.21)
Draft Decision: 34 COM 7A.31

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7A.Add,

2. Recalling Decision 33 COM 7A.30, adopted at its 33rd session (Seville, 2009),

3. Regrets that the State Party did not submit the required state of conservation report for the second consecutive year in spite of the requests made by the World Heritage Committee;

4. Urges the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to the property to assess the progress made in the implementation of corrective measures to achieve the Desired state of conservation, and to collaborate with the State Party in finalizing the property’s retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value;

5. Bearing in mind Article 6 of the World Heritage Convention, requests the Director of the World Heritage Centre, in cooperation with the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee, to initiate contacts at the highest level to explore all possible means to ensure the appropriate protection of the property in order to avoid its deletion from the World Heritage List;

6. Also requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2011, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.

7. Decides to retain Coro and its Port (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

Report year: 2010
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Date of Inscription: 1993
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iv)(v)
Danger List (dates): 2005-present
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 34COM (2010)
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