State of Conservation
221
Reports
71
Properties concerned
51
States Parties with SOC reports
Date end:2012index%3D141close
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2012 |
Document Source: | WHC-12/36.COM/7B.Add |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2011 |
Document Source: | WHC-11/35.COM/7B.Add |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2010 |
Document Source: | WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
Other Threats: | Inadequate on-site security and control systems |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2009 |
Document Source: | WHC-09/33.COM/7B.Add |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
Other Threats: | Inadequate on-site security and control systems |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2007 |
Document Source: | WHC-07/31.COM/7B |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2006 |
Document Source: | WHC-06/30.COM/7B.Add |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
Other Threats: | Lack of maintenance, insufficient guardianship and control system inside and outside the archaeological area |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2007 |
Document Source: | WHC-07/31.COM/7B |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2005 |
Document Source: | WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
Other Threats: | Need to preserve the landscape |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2003 |
Document Source: | WHC.03/27.COM/7B |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2002 |
Document Source: | WHC-02/CONF.202/17 |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2001 |
Document Source: | WHC-01/CONF.207/INF.6,WHC-01/CONF.208/10,WHC-2001/CONF.205/5 |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2000 |
Document Source: | WHC-2000/CONF.202/5,WHC-2000/CONF.204/10 |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2001 |
Document Source: | WHC-01/CONF.208/10 |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2023 |
Document Source: | WHC/23/45.COM/7B |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
States Parties: |
|
Year: |
2021
Initialy proposed for examination in 2020
|
Document Source: | WHC/21/44.COM/7B |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2017 |
Document Source: | WHC/17/41.COM/7B |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
Other Threats: | climate change |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2005 |
Document Source: | WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
Other Threats: | Uncontrolled vendors within and around the property |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2004 |
Document Source: | WHC-04/28.COM/15B |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2003 |
Document Source: | WHC.03/27.COM/7B |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
States Parties: |
|
Year: | 2004 |
Document Source: | WHC-04/28.COM/15A.Rev |
Threats*: | Interpretative and visitation facilities |
Other Threats: | a) Lack of adequate protection and conservation of the site; b) Serious deterioration of materials resulting in an important loss of cultural significance |
Danger List: | Yes |
States Parties
Albania Algeria Argentina Australia Belgium Benin Bolivia (Plurinational State of) Brazil Cambodia Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Cyprus Czechia Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt Ethiopia France Georgia Germany Ghana Greece Indonesia Iraq Ireland Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Lesotho Libya Mali Malta Morocco Nepal Netherlands (Kingdom of the) Paraguay Peru Poland Russian Federation Saudi Arabia Slovenia South Africa Türkiye Turkmenistan United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United Republic of Tanzania
* :
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.