State of Conservation
10
Reports
10
Properties concerned
9
States Parties with SOC reports
Property Category:Culturalclose
Date Start:
2012close
Date end:2012close
Site | State Party | Year | Threats* | Danger List |
---|---|---|---|---|
centennial hall in wrocławCentennial Hall in Wrocław | poland |
2012 | Ground transport infrastructure,
Other Threats: impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property of the rebuilt Pavilion |
No |
historic areas of istanbulHistoric Areas of Istanbul | turkiye |
2012 | Ground transport infrastructure,
Other Threats: Continued degradation of the vernacular architecture within the protected zones (particularly Ottoman-period timber houses in the Zeyrek and Süleymaniye core areas) |
No |
historical centre of the city of arequipaHistorical Centre of the City of Arequipa | peru |
2012 | Ground transport infrastructure, | No |
national history park – citadel, sans souci, ramiersNational History Park – Citadel, Sans Souci, Ramiers | haiti |
2012 | Ground transport infrastructure, | No |
natural and culturo-historical region of kotorNatural and Culturo-Historical Region of Kotor | montenegro |
2012 | Ground transport infrastructure, | No |
port, fortresses and group of monuments, cartagenaPort, Fortresses and Group of Monuments, Cartagena | colombia |
2012 | Ground transport infrastructure, | No |
samarkand – crossroad of culturesSamarkand – Crossroad of Cultures | uzbekistan |
2012 | Ground transport infrastructure,
Other Threats: Conservation of urban fabric |
No |
town of luang prabangTown of Luang Prabang | lao people's democratic republic |
2012 | Ground transport infrastructure, | No |
tyreTyre | lebanon |
2012 | Ground transport infrastructure,
Other Threats: Insufficient maintenance |
No |
vat phou and associated ancient settlements within the champasak cultural landscapeVat Phou and Associated Ancient Settlements within the Champasak Cultural Landscape | lao people's democratic republic |
2012 | Ground transport infrastructure, | No |
* :
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.