State of Conservation
111
Reports
52
Properties concerned
37
States Parties with SOC reports
Property Category:Culturalclose
Date end:2005close
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2004 |
Document Source: | WHC-04/28.COM/15B |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Other Threats: | Heritage badly maintained |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2005 |
Document Source: | WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2005 |
Document Source: | WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 1995 |
Document Source: | WHC-95/CONF.201/4 |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Other Threats: | Need for safeguarding and enhancement measures |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 1994 |
Document Source: | WHC-94/CONF.003/6,WHC-94/CONF.003/6 Add. |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Other Threats: | Need for safeguarding and enhancement measures |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 1995 |
Document Source: | WHC-95/CONF.201/4,WHC-95/CONF.203/5,WHC-95/CONF.203/5 Add.1 |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Other Threats: | Worrying state of conservation of some temples; Fragility of the structures (cracks, etc.); Partial collapse of a temple |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 1994 |
Document Source: | WHC-94/CONF.003/6 |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Other Threats: | Worrying state of conservation of some temples; Fragility of the structures (cracks, etc.) |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 1992 |
Document Source: | CLT-92/CONF.003/2,WHC-92/CONF.002/5 |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2004 |
Document Source: | WHC-04/28.COM/15A.Rev |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Other Threats: | Need for consolidation and restoration of the monument |
Danger List: | Yes |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2003 |
Document Source: | WHC.03/27.COM/7A,WHC.03/27.COM/7A.Corr |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Other Threats: | Need for consolidation and restoration of the monument |
Danger List: | Yes |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 1993 |
Document Source: | WHC-93/CONF.002/14 |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Other Threats: | Consolidation of the Sans Souci Palace and rehabilitation of the Royal Gardens required |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 1997 |
Document Source: | WHC-97/CONF.208/8A |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Danger List: | Yes |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 1996 |
Document Source: | WHC-96/CONF.201/7A |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Danger List: | Yes |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 1995 |
Document Source: | WHC-95/CONF.201/4,WHC-95/CONF.203/5,WHC-95/CONF.203/5 Add.1 |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Danger List: | Yes |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 1994 |
Document Source: | WHC-94/CONF.003/6,WHC-94/CONF.003/6 Add. |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Danger List: | Yes |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 1993 |
Document Source: | WHC-93/CONF.001/3,WHC-93/CONF.002/5 |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Danger List: | Yes |
States Parties: | Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan) |
Year: | 2004 |
Document Source: | WHC-04/28.COM/15A.Rev |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Other Threats: | a) Lack of maintenance; b) Natural factors |
Danger List: | Yes |
States Parties: | Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan) |
Year: | 1982 |
Document Source: | CLT-82/CONF.014/3,CLT-82/CONF.014/6 |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
Other Threats: | Loss of historical authenticity |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2004 |
Document Source: | WHC-04/28.COM/15B |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 1997 |
Document Source: | WHC-97/CONF.208/8B |
Threats*: | Legal framework |
States Parties
Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Benin Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Brazil Cambodia China Croatia Dominican Republic Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti India Kenya Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Mali Malta Mexico Morocco Nepal Oman Pakistan Peru Philippines Russian Federation Spain Sri Lanka Türkiye Turkmenistan United Republic of Tanzania Uzbekistan Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)Threats
Legal framework 111
* :
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.