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

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

b)  Erosion

c)  Lack of established boundaries and buffer zone;

d)  Absence of a conservation and management plan;

e)  Encroachments and urban pressure;

f)  Tourism pressure (particularly at Portobelo)

g)  Insufficient legislation for the preservation of built heritage and regulations combining the two components of the property

• 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

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

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

In response to the requests made by the World Heritage Committee at its 36th session (Saint-Petersburg, 2012), the State Party submitted a state of conservation report on 31 January 2013. The report provides information on the general state of conservation of the property and general actions to be implemented, as well as annexes on the work carried out to date at the Santiago Fort in Portobelo and the soil analysis undertaken. No precise data according to the request for reporting is included on the progress made on implementation of the corrective measures that were adopted when the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

On 14 March 2013, the State Party made a presentation on the joint Management Plan for two World Heritage properties in Panama: The Fortifications on the Caribbean side of Panama, Portobelo and San Lorenzo in conjunction with the Archaeological Site of Panama Viejo and Historic District. From the presentation, this would ensure consistency in decision-making and promote larger synergies; however no detailed information has been provided to ascertain the efficacy and adequacy of the proposal.

a)  The lack of an Emergency Plan

The State Party report includes synthetic information on the current conditions at the property that resulted from the monitoring carried out. It identifies causes and effects of deterioration, including an assessment of the risks and threats, as well as a list of potential solutions.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider that this baseline information could be used to develop the Emergency Plan for the property, as requested by the World Heritage Committee according to the Desired state of conservation and in full coherence with the related corrective measures adopted. The provided assessment of risks and threats and the proposed solutions need to be supported with supplementary information, not provided by the State Party at this stage, such as an assessment of the rate and extent of decay and an assessment of structural and mechanical risks, in order to prioritise interventions within the framework of the Emergency Plan. In addition, this should be articulated in full coherence with the recommendations of the 2010 reactive monitoring mission. Once this is done, a timeframe, phases for implementation and costs would need to be identified as a matter of urgency.

b)  Interventions carried out

The State Party reports on the works implemented at the property. These included the railings to secure access and functionality to the fortifications, and the installation of new signage with updated information. The State Party also reports on studies conducted for the implementation of the protection system to prevent mudslides and landslides.

The report includes an annex on the results of the soil investigation which was carried out to determine existing subsoil conditions in the area of landslides. The information provided should be useful for the definition of adequate strategies to prevent further mud and landslides and erosion of slopes that could potentially affect the attributes of the property. In the case of the Santiago Fort, interventions have centred on maintenance works (i.e. general cleaning of debris and trash, vegetation control), on the removal of rocks and boulders from the entrance of the fort, the placement of new soil on entrance, the placement of gravel paths at the entrance and the installation of new signage. The interventions did not involve structural work or repair of the masonry elements.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider that, although the interventions improved the conditions of access to the Santiago Fort in Portobelo, substantial efforts are still needed to address the poor state of conservation of most of the built heritage at the property, and that interventions need to be centred on areas potentially at risk of collapsing. During a meeting on 14 March 2013 between the State Party, the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS, the State Party has mentioned studies carried out for the construction of a retaining wall to prevent collapsing and landslides at the Santiago Fort in Portobelo, but further detailed technical information needs to be provided for evaluation on this particular issue prior to any intervention in the area.

c)  Issues not addressed

Apart from the above-mentioned elements that could constitute a base for an Emergency Plan, the report contains no specific information on the response to the requests made by the Committee within the framework of the Desired State of Conservation. The lack of legal instruments and of a clear budget is particularly worrying.

The related corrective measures expected to be implemented immediately have not been addressed as desired by the Committee. As mentioned previously, a risk assessment has been partially completed and operational management arrangements have been carried out. However, the State Party has provided no information on budgets nor on encroachments and urban pressure control. Moreover, the information provided on the Technical Office in Portobelo does not clarify the role of the institutions in the decision-making for conservation process.

d)  Management system

The State Party has submitted a joint Management Plan for two World Heritage properties in Panama. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider that the joint management system for the two properties needs to clarify the decision-making process for each of the properties in order to respect the specific character, the adequate conservation response according to the state of decay and the related emergencies detected and the way in which each of the properties is properly monitored.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies take note of the efforts made for setting up a coordinated national management system for World Heritage. However, they note the limited progress made by the State Party in the implementation of the Desired state of conservation and of the corrective measures of this property. They recommend that the World Heritage Committee express its concern that a comprehensive Emergency Plan has not yet been developed to identify a clear course of action to address the poor state of conservation of the property.

In addition, they note that no clear information was included on the decision-making process for the properties, nor on the role of the Technical Office in Portobelo in preparing the Emergency Plan. The institutional, legal and financial instruments to address the conservation and management of the property need to be clarified and put into force as a matter of urgency.