State of Conservation
8
Reports
8
Properties concerned
7
States Parties with SOC reports
Date Start:
2016close
Date end:2016close
Site | State Party | Year | Threats* | Danger List |
---|---|---|---|---|
banc d'arguin national parkBanc d'Arguin National Park | mauritania Mauritania | 2016 | Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure, | No |
hill forts of rajasthanHill Forts of Rajasthan | india India | 2016 | Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure,
Other Threats: Vulnerabilities of certain individual structures within the forts requiring short-term conservation actions |
No |
national history park – citadel, sans souci, ramiersNational History Park – Citadel, Sans Souci, Ramiers | haiti Haiti | 2016 | Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure, | No |
old city of jerusalem and its wallsOld City of Jerusalem and its Walls | jerusalem (site proposed by jordan)Jerusalem (Site proposed by Jordan) | 2016 | Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure,
Other Threats: Natural risk factors; Deterioration of monuments |
Yes |
pergamon and its multi-layered cultural landscapePergamon and its Multi-Layered Cultural Landscape | turkiye Türkiye | 2016 | Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure,
Other Threats: Need to improve the monitoring system by specifying which organization is responsible for monitoring each indicator and include seismic monitoring |
No |
shahr-i sokhtaShahr-i Sokhta | iran (islamic republic of) Iran (Islamic Republic of) | 2016 | Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure, | No |
site of palmyraSite of Palmyra | syrian arab republic Syrian Arab Republic | 2016 | Effects arising from use of transportation infrastructure,
Other Threats: serious weathering of many stone blocks |
Yes |
venice and its lagoonVenice and its Lagoon | italy Italy | 2016 | Effects arising from use of transportation 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.