Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
viii
ix
x

Archaeological Site of Nalanda Mahavihara at Nalanda, Bihar

India
Factors affecting the property in 2021*
  • Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Other Threats:

    Lack of appropriate documentation to establish the authenticity of the property

Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Management systems / Management Plan (lack of an Integrated Master Plan of Nalanda; need for strengthened approaches to visitor management and interpretation)
  • Other (lack of appropriate documentation to establish the authenticity of the property)
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2021
Requests approved: 0
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2021**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2021

On 13 December 2019, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1502/documents/ and presents progress with a number of conservation issues addressed by the Committee at its previous sessions as follows:

  • The Integrated Master Plan is at an advanced stage of development and will incorporate recommendations and regulations for development plans within or in the vicinity of the property that may have an impact on its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), authenticity or integrity;
  • Conservation works have been carried out based on a 5-year plan between 2014 and 2019. A conservation plan for the next 5 years has been developed and identifies conservation works to be undertaken each year;
  • A visitor management plan is being developed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as part of the Management Plan for the property. In the meantime, works on amenities for visitors and site interpretation have already started and some have been completed. The visitor management component of the site management plan will notably address the following aspects: revision of the on-site interpretation system and of the content of the interpretive panels; re-direction of the visitor circulation path; universal accessibility to the maximum possible areas of the property, while avoiding impacts on the excavated remains; upgrade of the existing museum and interpretation centre located in the buffer zone to offer improved exhibitions and content; capacity studies and impact assessments for proposed developments; allocation of public amenities, including washrooms, drinking water points, a ticket counter, dustbins, signage.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2021

The State Party has made progress on a number of the recommendations made by the Committee in 2018. In particular, the development of a visitor management plan, to be incorporated into the Management Plan for the property, is underway. It is also noted that the Integrated Master Plan is currently being prepared and will establish a context to assess the impacts that any future development proposal might have on the OUV of the property, as recommended at the time of the property’s inscription in 2016 and reiterated by the Committee in 2018.

The State Party has indicated that the preparation of a Management Plan is being undertaken by ASI, in response to the Committee’s request to work out a conservation plan for the excavated remains of the property. No details or timeframe for the development of the Management Plan were provided, and it is noted that the report refers to the 5-year work plans as ‘conservation plans’. It is therefore recommended that the Committee reiterate its request that a formal conservation plan be developed and integrate management and conservation to safeguard the OUV and authenticity of the property.

The State Party’s report does not provide a specific response to the Committee’s encouragement to establish a research programme with a particular focus on establishing the authenticity of the property, along with corresponding documentation that differentiates the authentic archaeological fabric from repairs. The lack of clarity between authentic fabric and a hundred years of successive layers of later stabilization and conservation fabric remains a concern, and it is therefore recommended that the Committee request the State Party to undertake this important research work in order to help define the authenticity of the fabric.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2021
44 COM 7B.23
Archaeological Site of Nalanda Mahavihara at Nalanda, Bihar (India) (C 1502)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/21/44.COM/7B,
  2. Recalling Decision 42 COM 7B.6, adopted at its 42nd session (Manama, 2018),
  3. Acknowledges the progress made by State Party on a number of its previous recommendations;
  4. Takes note of the continuing conservation work and the development of visitor facilities at the property, of the progress accomplished with the preparation of a visitor management plan, to be incorporated in site Management Plan, and with the preparation of the Integrated Master Plan, which will incorporate recommendations and regulations regarding any development plan within or in the vicinity of the property, and requests the State Party to provide a timeframe for their completion;
  5. Also requests the State Party to develop a research programme focused specifically on defining the authenticity of the property, including the necessary documentation to identify authentic archaeological fabric, as encouraged in its earlier Decision;
  6. Reiterates its request to the State Party to establish a formal conservation plan for the excavated remains of the property in order to safeguard the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and authenticity;
  7. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2022, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for review by the Advisory Bodies.
Draft Decision: 44 COM 7B.23

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/21/44.COM/7B,
  2. Recalling Decision 42 COM 7B.6, adopted at its 42nd session (Manama, 2018),
  3. Acknowledges the progress made by State Party on a number of its previous recommendations;
  4. Takes note of the continuing conservation work and the development of visitor facilities at the property, of the progress accomplished with the preparation of a visitor management plan, to be incorporated in site Management Plan, and with the preparation of the Integrated Master Plan, which will incorporate recommendations and regulations regarding any development plan within or in the vicinity of the property, and requests the State Party to provide a timeframe for their completion;
  5. Also requests the State Party to develop a research programme focused specifically on defining the authenticity of the property, including the necessary documentation to identify authentic archaeological fabric, as encouraged in its earlier Decision;
  6. Reiterates its request to the State Party to establish a formal conservation plan for the excavated remains of the property in order to safeguard the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and authenticity;
  7. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 December 2022, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for review by the Advisory Bodies.
Report year: 2021
India
Date of Inscription: 2016
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iv)(vi)
Documents examined by the Committee
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2019) .pdf
Initialy proposed for examination in 2020
arrow_circle_right 44COM (2021)
Exports

* : 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.


top