i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
State of Conservation Fortifications on the ... 2016

Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo

Panama
Factors affecting the property in 2016*
  • Erosion and siltation/ deposition
  • Housing
  • Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
  • Land conversion
  • Legal framework
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Other Threats:

    Fragile state of the property and accelerated degradation by environmental factors, lack of maintenance and limited conservation planning

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Fragile state of the property and accelerated degradation by environmental factors, lack of maintenance and limited conservation planning
  • Erosion
  • Lack of established boundaries and buffer zone
  • Absence of a conservation and management plan
  • Encroachments and urban pressure
  • Tourism pressure (particularly at Portobelo)
  • Insufficient legislation for the preservation of built heritage and regulations combining the two components of the property
Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
  • Fragile state of the property and accelerated degradation by environmental factors, lack of maintenance and limited conservation planning
  • Erosion
  • Lack of established boundaries and buffer zone
  • Absence of a conservation and management plan
  • Encroachments and urban pressure
  • Tourism pressure (particularly at Portobelo)
  • Insufficient legislation for the preservation of built heritage and regulations combining the two components of the property
Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger

Adopted, see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4763

Corrective Measures for the property

Adopted, see https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4763 

Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures
Adopted, see https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4763
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2016
Requests approved: 4 (from 1980-1993)
Total amount approved : 76,800 USD
1993 Financial contribution for the services of 2 ... (Approved)   14,000 USD
1992 Financial contribution for the monitoring of 5 cultural ... (Approved)   3,300 USD
1986 Assist the authorities in preparing a request of ... (Approved)   6,500 USD
1980 Equipment and expert mission for the fortifications on ... (Approved)   53,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2016**

November 2001: joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission; March 2010: joint World Heritage Centre / ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring mission; February 2014: ICOMOS Advisory mission.

2014 Report on the ICOMOS Advisory Mission to Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo, 25 ...
1993 Expert Mission Report, Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2016

On 29 January 2016, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/135/documents/ and which provides progress on a number of issues.

The report provides a comprehensive analysis of the past decisions, the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) and corrective measures adopted by Decision 36 COM 7B.102. It states that due to various circumstances, the State Party was unable to implement the corrective measures within the established timeframe 2012-2015 and that it is now committed to implement the corrective measures in the timeframe 2016-2019.

The State Party ensures that while the management of the property is entrusted to the Patronato de Portobelo y San Lorenzo, the National Institute for Culture (INAC) remains the responsible national institution and that it will closely monitor the implementation of the corrective measures.

As for the factors affecting the property that substantiated the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger, the report states that following the ICOMOS Advisory mission in 2014, a number of measures were implemented such as the preparation of an Emergency Plan, the adoption of the law that allocates State funding to the Patronato de Portobelo y San Lorenzo and the delimitation of the property components.

The report also presents a detailed strategy, programme and timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures organized around four groups, as follows:

  1. Emergency Plan: budget allocation and implementation of urgent consolidation works as defined in Emergency Plan of 2014;
  2. National Laws and policies: identification of buffer zone at Portobelo and legal definition of boundaries of World Heritage property components and their buffer zones;
  3. Management Plans/Master Plans: update of the management plan of 2013 for the period 2018-2022; annual plans for the consolidation and conservation programmes;
  4. Operational and Participatory Management System: reactivation of the National Commission of World Heritage; approval of the territorial and urban development plans; inter-institutional arrangements for their implementation.

The timeframe is established for a three-year period as follows:

  • Preliminary stage (January 2016 – June 2016)
  • Phase I (September 2016 – September 2017)
  • Phase II (September 2017 – September 2018)
  • Phase III (September 2018 – June 2019).

Finally, the report includes a very detailed report on the activities implemented by the Patronato in 2015 and those programmed for 2016.

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2016

The previous Committee Decision 39 COM 7A.46 expressed very serious concern about the progress made in the implementation of the corrective measures. While it remains regrettable that the timeframe 2012-2015 established by the Committee was not respected, it is now encouraging to note the well-structured strategy, programme and work plan that is submitted for the period 2016-2019.

The State Party report confirms in clear terms the commitment of the national authorities and institutions for cultural heritage and the Patronato de Portobelo y San Lorenzo to implement this programme.

It is therefore recommended that the Committee appreciate the State Party’s efforts and urge it to ensure the necessary budgetary, personnel and institutional provisions for the timely implementation of the corrective measures 2016-2019. It is also recommended that the Committee make a clear statement that, on the basis of the state of conservation reports the State Party will submit during the coming years, it will strictly monitor if the planned goals and activities are achieved and if sufficient progress is made in the achievement of the DSOCR.

Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2016
40 COM 7A.3
Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Panama) (C 135)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/16/40.COM/7A,
  2. Recalling Decision 39 COM 7A.46, adopted at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015),
  3. While regretting that the set of corrective measures adopted at the time of inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger was not implemented within the timeframe 2012-2015, appreciates the State Party’s renewed commitment to take all necessary measures for the proper conservation and management of the property;
  4. Welcomes the strategy, programme and timeframe that are now submitted by the State Party that will ensure the implementation of the corrective measures in the period 2016-2019 with the aim of achieving the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) in 2019;
  5. Urges the State Party to take all the necessary legal, institutional, managerial and financial measures to ensure the full implementation of the corrective measures and to inform the Committee in its annual reports on the progress made;
  6. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2017, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 41st session in 2017;
  7. Decides to retain the Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Panama) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Read more
40 COM 8C.2
Update of the list of World Heritage in Danger (retained sites)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined the state of conservation reports of properties inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger (WHC/16/40.COM/7A, WHC/16/40.COM/7A.Add and WHC/16/40.COM/7A.Add.2),
  2. Decides to retain the following properties on the List of World Heritage in Danger:
  • Afghanistan, Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley (Decision 40 COM 7A.26)
  • Afghanistan, Minaret and Archaeological Remains of Jam (Decision 40 COM 7A.27)
  • Belize, Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (Decision 40 COM 7A.32)
  • Bolivia (Plurinational State of), City of Potosí (Decision 40 COM 7A.1)
  • Central African Republic, Manovo-Gounda St Floris National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.34)
  • Chile, Humberstone and Santa Laura Saltpeter Works (Decision 40 COM 7A.2)
  • Côte d'Ivoire, Comoé National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.35)
  • Côte d'Ivoire / Guinea, Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve (Decision 40 COM 7A.36)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Garamba National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.37)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kahuzi-Biega National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.38)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Okapi Wildlife Reserve (Decision 40 COM 7A.39)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Salonga National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.40)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo, Virunga National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.41)
  • Egypt, Abu Mena (Decision 40 COM 7A.9)
  • Ethiopia, Simien National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.43)
  • Georgia, Bagrati Cathedral and Gelati Monastery (Decision 40 COM 7A.28)
  • Honduras, Río Plátano Biosphere Reserve (Decision 40 COM 7A.33)
  • Indonesia, Tropical Rainforest Heritage of Sumatra (Decision 40 COM 7A.48)
  • Iraq, Ashur (Qal'at Sherqat) (Decision 40 COM 7A.10)
  • Iraq, Hatra (Decision 40 COM 7A.11)
  • Iraq, Samarra Archaeological City (Decision 40 COM 7A.12)
  • Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls (site proposed by Jordan) (Decision 40 COM 7A.13)
  • Madagascar, Rainforests of the Atsinanana (Decision 40 COM 7A.44)
  • Mali, Timbuktu (Decision 40 COM 7A.6)
  • Mali, Tomb of Askia (Decision 40 COM 7A.7)
  • Niger, Air and Ténéré Natural Reserves (Decision 40 COM 7A.45)
  • Palestine, Birthplace of Jesus: Church of the Nativity and the Pilgrimage Route, Bethlehem (Decision 40 COM 7A.14)
  • Palestine, Palestine: Land of Olives and Vines – Cultural Landscape of Southern Jerusalem, Battir (Decision 40 COM 7A.15)
  • Panama, Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Decision 40 COM 7A.3)
  • Peru, Chan Chan Archaelogical Zone (Decision 40 COM 7A.4)
  • Senegal, Niokolo-Koba National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.46)
  • Serbia, Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (Decision 40 COM 7A. 30)
  • Solomon Islands, East Rennell (Decision 40 COM 7A.49)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Aleppo (Decision 40 COM 7A.16)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Bosra (Decision 40 COM 7A.17)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient City of Damascus (Decision 40 COM 7A.18)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Ancient Villages of Northern Syria (Decision 40 COM 7A.19)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Crac des Chevaliers and Qal’at Salah El-Din (Decision 40 COM 7A.20)
  • Syrian Arab Republic, Site of Palmyra (Decision 40 COM 7A.21)
  • Uganda, Tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi (Decision 40 COM 7A.8)
  • United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile City (Decision 40 COM 7A.31)
  • United Republic of Tanzania, Selous Game Reserve (Decision 40 COM 7A.47)
  • United States of America, Everglades National Park (Decision 40 COM 7A.50)
  • Venezuela, Coro and its Port (Decision 40 COM 7A.5)
  • Yemen, Historic Town of Zabid (Decision 40 COM 7A.23)
  • Yemen, Old City of Sana’a (Decision 40 COM 7A.24)
  • Yemen, Old Walled City of Shibam (Decision 40 COM 7A.25).
Read more
Draft Decision: 40 COM 7A.3

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/16/40.COM/7A,
  2. Recalling Decision 39 COM 7A.46, adopted at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015),
  3. While regretting that the set of corrective measures adopted at the time of inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger was not implemented within the timeframe 2012-2015, appreciates the State Party’s renewed committment to take all necesary measures for the proper conservation and management of the propery;
  4. Welcomes the strategy, programme and timeframe that are now submitted by the State Party that will ensure the implementation of the corrective measures in the period 2016-2019 with the aim of achieving the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger (DSOCR) in 2019;
  5. Urges the State Party to take all the necessary legal, institutional, managerial and financial measures to ensure the full implementation of the corrective measures and to inform the Committee in its annual reports on the progress made;
  6. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2017, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 41st session in 2017;
  7. Decides to retain the Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo-San Lorenzo (Panama) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Previous 2015 Next 2017
Report year: 2016
Panama
Date of Inscription: 1980
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)(iv)
Danger List (dates): 2012-present
Documents examined by the Committee
WHC/16/40.COM/7A
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2016) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 40COM (2016)
Exports
Previous 2015 Next 2017

* : 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.