English Français

State of Conservation

  • Results
  • Views
  • Exports
171
Reports
65
Properties
49
States Parties
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...  9  See All
States Parties:  Dominican Republic
Year:  2009
Document Source:  WHC-09/33.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties:  Dominican Republic
Year:  2007
Document Source:  WHC-07/31.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: Deterioration of structures caused by natural and human hazards
States Parties:  Dominican Republic
Year:  2006
Document Source:  WHC-06/30.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: Deterioration of structures caused by natural and human hazards
States Parties:  Russian Federation
Year:  2019
Document Source:  WHC/19/43.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: Poor state of conservation of the monastic irrigation system
States Parties:  Russian Federation
Year:  2018
Document Source:  WHC/18/42.COM/7B.Add2
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: Poor state of conservation of the monastic irrigation system
States Parties:  Russian Federation
Year:  2017
Document Source:  WHC/17/41.COM/7B.Add,WHC/17/41.COM/INF.7 Rev
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: Lack of monitoring; Poor state of conservation of the monastic irrigation system
States Parties:  China
Year:  2015
Document Source:  WHC-15/39.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties:  Russian Federation
Year:  2011
Document Source:  WHC-11/35.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: Structural degradation of its components of the property
States Parties:  Iraq
Year:  2018
Document Source:  WHC/18/42.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: Slopes of the archaeological mound non stabilized
States Parties:  Iraq
Year:  2016
Document Source:  WHC/16/40.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: Slopes of the archaeological mound non stabilized
States Parties:  Japan
Year:  2019
Document Source:  WHC/19/43.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties:  Georgia
Year:  2017
Danger List:  Yes
Document Source:  WHC/17/41.COM/7A,WHC/17/41.COM/INF.7 Rev
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: General need for interior and exterior conservation work on the monuments
States Parties:  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Year:  2008
Document Source:  WHC-08/32.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties:  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Year:  2005
Document Source:  WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties:  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Year:  2003
Document Source:  WHC.03/27.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties:  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Year:  2002
Document Source:  WHC-02/CONF.201/11Rev,WHC-02/CONF.202/2,WHC-02/CONF.202/17
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties:  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Year:  2001
Document Source:  WHC-01/CONF.208/10
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties:  Turkey
Year:  2006
Document Source:  WHC-06/30.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Other Threats: Continued degradation of the vernacular architecture within the protected areas (mainly the Ottoman period timber houses in the district of Zeyrek and Süleymaniye)
States Parties:  Belgium
Year:  2009
Document Source:  WHC-09/33.COM/7B.Add
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
States Parties:  Peru
Year:  2015
Document Source:  WHC-15/39.COM/7B
Threats*: Interpretative and visitation facilities
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...  9  See All

* : 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.