State of Conservation
Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha
Factors affecting the property in 2000*
- Management activities
- Management systems/ management plan
- Other Threats:
Extremely harsh natural environment
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Construction of concrete foundations at the Maya Devi Temple site in December 1998
- Need for a site conservation plan
- Extremely harsh natural environment
International Assistance granted to the property until 2000
Requests Approved: 0
Total Amount Approved: 20,000USD
|2000||Support for the Organization of an International Scientific ...||20,000 USD|
Missions to the property until 2000**
October 1999: World Heritage Centre mission
Information presented to the Bureau of the World Heritage Committee in 2000
Twenty-third session of the Bureau - paragraph IV.70
Twenty-third session of the Committee - paragraph X.46 and Annex VIII
New information: Following the request of the Bureau at its twenty-third extraordinary session, a UNESCO reactive monitoring mission was undertaken in April 2000 by two international experts. They held further consultations with the authorities concerned for the restoration of the Maya Devi Temple, and examined the management and conservation needs of the fragile archaeological site. The UNESCO reactive monitoring mission recommended that:
- in light of the sensitive religious, archaeological and political nature of the property, an international technical meeting be held to discuss the conservation, restoration, and presentation of the Maya Devi Temple in order to initiate alternative draft conceptual designs based upon non-intrusive foundations, reversibility, shelter and protection of the archaeological remains, visibility, focus, controlled access, and worship;
- in advance of the international technical meeting referred to in point (a), initiate conservation of the Maya Devi Temple by recording the exposed brick surfaces photographically and through EMD recordings of levels of the bricks, and by recording the daily temperature, humidity, visitor and water table fluctuations within the Temple vicinity.
At the time of the preparation of this working document, an ICOMOS expert reactive monitoring mission to follow-up on the findings of the UNESCO mission was being organized. The findings of the ICOMOS mission will also be presented to the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session.
Action RequiredThe Bureau may wish to examine further information at the time of its session and adopt a decision thereafter.
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2000
The Centre received an international assistance request from the Nepalese authorities for the organisation of the International Technical Meeting to discuss and initiate alternative draft conceptual designs for rehabilitating the Maya Devi Temple. The Chairperson of the Committee approved the request, and the World Heritage Centre is organising this meeting, currently scheduled for April 2001, the earliest possible dates for the appropriate international experts to travel together to the site.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2000
Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal)
Following the request of the Bureau at its twenty-third extraordinary session, the World Heritage Centre organized a UNESCO reactive monitoring mission to Lumbini to examine the state of conservation of the Maya Devi Temple archaeological remains and to undertake further consultations with the Nepalese authorities concerning the proposals under consideration for the rehabilitation of the Maya Devi Temple.
The Bureau was informed that the UNESCO mission undertaken in April 2000 recommended the following:
(a) The four draft conceptual designs for the construction of a “new” Maya Devi Temple on top of the archaeological remains of the Temple should be rejected, as such a construction, which would last a maximum of 100 years, would result in significant long-term damage to the unique site which is over 2000 years old;
(b) Taking into consideration the sensitive religious, archaeological and political nature of the property, alternative designs for the Temple should be further discussed at an International Technical Meeting, based on the concepts of non-intrusion, reversibility, shelter, visibility, focus, access, worship, authentic materials and integration with the Tange Master Plan, to be organized as soon as possible;
(c) In anticipation of further discussions on alternative designs for the rehabilitation of the Maya Devi Temple, and in the absence of a regular monitoring system, the national authorities are recommended to put into place basic environment monitoring mechanisms of the Temple;
(d) In the absence of a strategic plan for the on-going management and conservation of the site, the development of a “minor plan” for enhanced preservation and presentation of the Sacred Garden was urged to address the following recommendations: (i) a geophysical survey is recommended in order to establish the full delineation of the site; (ii) the adoption and implementation of a systematic conservation strategy for addressing the deterioration of the archaeological structures; (iii) as the site has been developed resulting in incoherent landscaping, it is recommended that the authorities adopt a unified approach to connect the site to its surrounding to ensure that authentic materials are used with reference to the site’s historical and archaeological nature; (iv) as visitor numbers are unknown, it is recommended that recording of visitor numbers be conducted; (v) as ritual practices have resulted in damage to the site in the past, the creation of a principle archaeological circuit and a principle ritual circuit with zones for ritual practices is recommended; (vi) as the Tange Plan is still incomplete, the State Party is recommended to regroup the visitor services behind a distinct entry zone to be established, and to investigate the improvement of the drainage system.
On 19 June 2000, the Centre received a technical co-operation request for supporting the organization of the recommended International Technical Meeting. The request has been evaluated by ICOMOS, which fully supports the well-formulated request. The Bureau was informed that the request would be processed swiftly following normal procedures. The Centre also reported that information from the UNESCO Kathmandu Office had been received concerning the Government’s initiation of the basic monitoring of the Maya Devi Temple environment through temperature and humidity fluxation measurement.
To follow-up on the findings of the UNESCO mission and following the request of the Bureau, an ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission was organized between 19-23 June 2000. The ICOMOS mission, underlining the challenges faced in safeguarding the World Heritage values of this fragile archaeological site which is also a place of pilgrimage and worship, informed the Bureau that the interests of conservation and religious devotion could be contradictory. The Bureau was informed that, despite assurances from the State Party at the time of inscription that a conservation plan would be developed for the site, such plan had not yet been elaborated to date.
The Bureau examined the findings and recommendations of the UNESCO reactive monitoring mission undertaken by two international experts in April 2000 and the ICOMOS Mission of June 2000. The Bureau recommended HMG of Nepal to consider adopting the UNESCO Mission’s Recommendations for Enhanced Management and Conservation of the site and report to the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau on any further measures taken to enhance management and conservation of the site.
The Bureau expressed its appreciation to HMG of Nepal for adopting the UNESCO Mission’s Recommendations for Immediate Actions by commencing regular monitoring of the Maya Devi Temple’s environment and by submitting a Technical Co-operation request for supporting the organization of an International Technical Meeting to discuss and initiate alternative draft conceptual designs for rehabilitating the Maya Devi Temple.
In view of the absence of a conservation or management plan for safeguarding the World Heritage values of the Lumbini World Heritage site, the Bureau requested HMG of Nepal to urgently develop a Management Plan, taking into consideration the UNESCO and ICOMOS Mission Recommendations.
Finally, the Bureau requested the World Heritage Centre to continue to assist HMG of Nepal in organizing the International Technical Meeting as early as possible, together with the UNESCO Kathmandu Office, and to report on the progress made to the twenty-fourth extraordinary session of the Bureau.
State of conservation reports of cultural properties which the Committee noted
VIII.35 Brasilia (Brazil)
Peking Man Site at Zhoukoudian (China)
The Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)
VIII.36 Islamic Cairo (Egypt)
VIII.37 Roman Monuments, Cathedral St Peter and Liebfrauen-Church in Trier (Germany)
Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin (Germany)
Classical Weimar (Germany)
Hortabagy National Park (Hungary)
VIII.38 Khajuraho Group of Monuments (India) Sun Temple of Konarak (India) Petra (Jordan) Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic) Byblos (Lebanon) Ksar Ait Ben Haddou (Morocco) VIII.39 Island of Mozambique (Mozambique) Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal) Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo - San Lorenzo (Panama) Archaeological Site of Chavin (Peru) VIII.40 Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines)
VIII.38 Khajuraho Group of Monuments (India)
Sun Temple of Konarak (India)
Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic)
Ksar Ait Ben Haddou (Morocco)
VIII.39 Island of Mozambique (Mozambique)
Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal)
Fortifications on the Caribbean Side of Panama: Portobelo - San Lorenzo (Panama)
Archaeological Site of Chavin (Peru)
VIII.40 Rice Terraces of the Philippine Cordilleras (Philippines)
VIII.41 Baroque Churches of the Philippines (Philippines)
VIII.42 Cultural Landscape of Sintra (Portugal)
VIII.43 Istanbul (Turkey)
Complex of Hué Monuments (Vietnam)
The Bureau may wish to adopt the following decision and transmit it to the Committee for noting:
“The Bureau requests the World Heritage Centre to continue assisting the Nepalese authorities in the organisation of the International Technical Meeting. The Bureau requests the findings of this meeting to be reported to its twenty-fifth session. In the meantime, the Bureau requests the authorities concerned to continue implementing the recommendations of the Bureau at its twenty-fourth session, and to report to its twenty-fifth session in June/July 2001 on any further measures taken to enhance the management and conservation of the site.”
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”).