Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha
Factors affecting the property in 2004*
- Management activities
- Management systems/ management plan
- Ritual / spiritual / religious and associative uses
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Tourism Pressure; Lack of capacity in conservation techniques; Lack of management mechanism (including legislation); Lack of presentation and interpretation; Floods/Hurricanes.
Additional Details:
Additional development pressures include pilgrimage activities.
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2004
Total amount approved : 40,000 USD
| 2001 | Brick Conservation of the Alcove Remains of the Maya ... (Approved) | 20,000 USD |
| 2000 | Support for the Organization of an International ... (Approved) | 20,000 USD |
Missions to the property until 2004**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2004
The report submitted by the State Party to the Secretariat on 21 January 2004 draws attention to the conflicting recommendations made by successive expert missions on whether the excavated part of the shrine should be covered or left exposed. It also mentions that the Maya Devi shrine is a living pilgrimage site with worldwide spiritual value, incessantly visited by devotees, whose religious sensibilities had been affected by the disagreeable conditions whereby the Marker Stone and the image of Maya Devi were accommodated in a temporary shelter. It was due to this situation that the decision was taken to reinstall a permanent protective structure.
The report also indicates the provision of a management plan of the holy complex which includes issues regarding entry regulation, guidance and facilities for visitors, promotional activities, access control to the main sanctum, logging of weather record and security measures of the property. It also highlights the action taken by the State Party whofully implemented the UNESCO recommendations made at the 2001 International Scientific Experts Meeting, using them as guidelines for the restoration work of the Maya Devi shrine.
A UNESCO/ICOMOS joint mission undertaken in May 2004 assessed the impact of the newly constructed Maya Devi shrine on the World Heritage value of the property as a whole. The mission findings and recommendations will be reported at the time of the 28th session of the Committee.
Summary of the interventions
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2004
28 COM 15B.66
Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal)
The World Heritage Committee,1. Expresses its grave concern over the fact that the newly-constructed Maya Devi Temple affects the authenticity and integrity of the property;
2. Urges the State Party to review, in collaboration with UNESCO and the Advisory Bodies, the existing management protocols and elaborate a revised comprehensive conservation and management plan which ensures the longterm safeguarding of the authenticity and integrity of the property;
3. Expresses its great disappointment that the project plans were not submitted to the Committee before construction began;
4. Requests the State Party to determine, in collaboration with UNESCO and the Advisory Bodies, the best measures to reverse the negative impact of the structure affecting the World Heritage value of the property and the appropriate management mechanisms to prevent such situations in the future;
5. Requests the World Heritage Centre to investigate the procedure which allowed the authorization of the construction of such a building without the knowledge of the World Heritage Committee;
6. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2005, a report on the measures proposed to be taken to reverse the threats posed to the property;
7. Decides to examine the state of conservation of this property at its 29th session in 2005.
Draft Decision: 28 COM 15B.66
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Takes note of the UNESCO/ICOMOS joint reactive monitoring mission findings and recommendations, which took place in May 2004.
Nepal
* :
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.
