jump to the content
Advanced search

State of Conservation (SOC)

Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park (2009)

UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property

Requests Approved: 0
Total Amount Ap proved: 0USD

Missions**
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports

Lack of management structure and management plan 

Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues

At its 31st session, the World Heritage Committee requested the State Party to submit a progress report on the preparation of a management plan for the property to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2009, for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its 33rd session in 2009.

On 12 May 2009, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report. A major portion of this report is dedicated to the conservation work carried out on individual buildings of the property. The report makes no reference to the progress made on the preparation of the management plan requested by the World Heritage Committee.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies note the extensive work carried out at different monuments composing the property. They are however concerned about the lack of progress in the finalisation and the adoption of the management plan requested by the World Heritage Committee that would provide a comprehensive framework underpinning decisions about conservation actions, including interventions on individual buildings scattered throughout a large geographical area.

 

Conclusion
Decision

  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

33COM7B.70
Link to the decision

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-09/33.COM/7B.Add,

2. Recalling Decision 31 COM 7B.79, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),

3. Regrets that the State Party did not yet finalise and adopt the management plan, developed with full involvement of the established management authority, and built around a Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, to ensure the integrated conservation of the property;

4. Urges the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2010, the adopted management plan in three printed and electronic copies;

5. Also urges the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2010, a detailed progress report on the implementation of the management plan, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session in 2010.

Draft Decision: 33 COM 7B.70

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-09/33.COM/7B.Add,

2. Recalling Decision 31 COM 7B.79, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),

3. Regrets that the State Party did not yet finalise and adopt the management plan, developed with full involvement of the established management authority, and built around a Statement of Outstanding Universal Value, to ensure the integrated conservation of the property;

4. Urges the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2010, the adopted management plan in three printed and electronic copies;

5. Also urges the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2010, a detailed progress report on the implementation of the management plan, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 34th session in 2010.

 

Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park
State Party:
India
Date of Inscription: 2004
Nomination records (Year): 2002
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iii)(iv)(v)(vi)
Exports
Word File
SOC Reports (year)
2011
2010
2009
2007
2005
Threats*
  • Management systems/ management plan
  • Other Threats:
Documents
WHC-09/33.COM/7B.Add
Other Documents:
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC ID: 756

* : 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.