i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
State of Conservation Search

State of Conservation

76
Reports
31
Properties concerned
22
States Parties with SOC reports
bar_chart Statistics view_list List table_chart Table pin_drop Map
Excel File .xls All SOC (Zip file) .zip
Property Category:Culturalclose
Date end:2003close
Threats* : Ground transport infrastructureclose
Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (2001)
States Parties: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Year: 2001
Document Source: WHC-01/CONF.208/10
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Other Threats: Risks of collapse
Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (2000)
States Parties: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Year: 2000
Document Source: WHC-2000/CONF.202/5
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (1998)
States Parties: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Year: 1998
Document Source: WHC-98/CONF.201/3B
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites (1994)
States Parties: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Year: 1994
Document Source: WHC-94/CONF.001/3B Add.2
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
The Great Wall (1994)
States Parties: China
Year: 1994
Document Source: WHC-94/CONF.001/3B
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Town of Luang Prabang (2003)
States Parties: Lao People's Democratic Republic
Year: 2003
Document Source: WHC.03/27.COM/7B
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Other Threats: Concrete reinforcement of the Nam Khan river bank ; Construction of walls along the riverbank of the Mekong;
Town of Luang Prabang (2002)
States Parties: Lao People's Democratic Republic
Year: 2002
Document Source: WHC-02/CONF.201/11Rev,WHC-02/CONF.202/17
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Other Threats: Concrete reinforcement of the Nam Khan river bank ; Construction of walls along the riverbank of the Mekong;
Town of Luang Prabang (2000)
States Parties: Lao People's Democratic Republic
Year: 2000
Document Source: WHC-2000/CONF.202/5,WHC-2000/CONF.204/10
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Town of Luang Prabang (1999)
States Parties: Lao People's Democratic Republic
Year: 1999
Document Source: WHC-99/CONF.209/14
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Tyre (2003)
States Parties: Lebanon
Year: 2003
Document Source: WHC.03/27.COM/7B
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Other Threats: Important conservation problems ; Need to give more importance to the wealth of the archaeological heritage and of the natural coastal landscape
Tyre (2002)
States Parties: Lebanon
Year: 2002
Document Source: WHC-02/CONF.202/17
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Other Threats: Important conservation problems
Tyre (1998)
States Parties: Lebanon
Year: 1998
Document Source: WHC-98/CONF.201/3B,WHC-98/CONF.203/8Rev.
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Tyre (1997)
States Parties: Lebanon
Year: 1997
Document Source: WHC-97/CONF.204/2B,WHC-97/CONF.208/4B,WHC-97/CONF.208/8B
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Vat Phou and Associated Ancient Settlements within the Champasak Cultural Landscape (2003)
States Parties: Lao People's Democratic Republic
Year: 2003
Document Source: WHC.03/27.COM/7B
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Xanthos-Letoon (1994)
States Parties: Türkiye
Year: 1994
Document Source: WHC-94/CONF.003/6,WHC-94/CONF.003/6 Add.
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Xanthos-Letoon (1991)
States Parties: Türkiye
Year: 1991
Document Source: SC-91/CONF.002/3
Threats*: Ground transport infrastructure
Properties
file_download
Categories
file_download
Regions
file_download
States Parties
Afghanistan Brazil China Colombia Egypt Germany Greece India Iran (Islamic Republic of) Japan Jordan Lao People's Democratic Republic Lebanon Morocco Pakistan Spain Sweden Syrian Arab Republic Türkiye United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Viet Nam Yemen
Threats
Ground transport infrastructure 76

* : 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.