Advanced search

State of Conservation (SOC)

Kathmandu Valley  (1989)

UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property

Requests Approved: 0 (from1979-1989)
Total Amount Ap proved: 77,000USD

1989 Work and equipment for the restoration of the roof of the Patan ...   14,000  USD
1989 Urgent works for the restoration of the roof of the Patan Temple ...   20,000  USD
1980 Additional financial assistance for Swayambhu Temple in Kathmandu ...   13,000  USD
1979 Financial assistance for the consolidation of Swayambhu Temple in ...   30,000  USD
Missions**
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues

The Committee was also informed of the collapse of the roof of one of the temples in Patan in the Valley of Kathmandu.

Emergency assistance had been immediately granted to the Nepalese authorities concerned.

Conclusion
Decision

  • Adopted

  • Draft Decision

13COMIX.20
Link to the decision

20. The Committee was also informed of the collapse of the roof of one of the temples in Patan in the Valley of Kathmandu. Emergency assistance had been immediately granted to the Nepalese authorities concerned.

 

13COMXIII.38-39.A
Link to the decision

38. The Committee noted that the Bureau had examined in detail the requests for international assistance presented in document SC-89/CONF.004/7. The Committee also took into consideration that the Bureau had incorporated additional information received by the Secretariat since the preparation of this document into its evaluation.

39. In accordance with the procedures for granting international assistance set out in the Operational Guidelines adopted by the Committee in December 1988, the Committee approved the following requests:

A. Technical Cooperation

1. Galapagos National Park (Ecuador): US$59,500
Purchase of 2 motor-boats and spare parts and repair and maintenance costs

2. Archaeological site of Epidaurus (Greece): US$65,400
Purchase of stereopantograph

3. Kathmandu Valley (Nepal): US$14,000
Work and equipment for restoration of roof of the Patan Temple

4. Royal Chitwan National Park (Nepal) US$50,000
Public awareness programmes and development of an educational and interpretative centre in Royal Chitwan National Park
The Committee at its next session may wish to consider additional amounts for this project on the basis of a progress report on the status of implementation of the project in 1990.

5. Wieliczka Salt Mine (Poland): US$45,000
Urgent work for consolidating the foundation and the protection of the site
The Committee noted that during a mission in May 1989 by American experts, commissioned by President Bush, with a view to preserving the site of Cracow, an evaluation had been conducted at the same time on Wieliczka Salt Mine. A project had been developed to address the serious humidity problem. A copy of the project had been submitted to the Secretariat.

6. Serengeti National Park (Tanzania): US$30,000
Upon receipt and approval by the Secretariat of a revised proposal for the purchase of a film-van and accessories.

 

No draft Decision

Kathmandu Valley
State Party:
Nepal
Date of Inscription: 1979
Nomination records (Year): 2006, 1979
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (iii)(iv)(vi)
Documents
Original Documents
SC.89/CONF.004/12
Other Documents
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
Exports
Word File
SOC Reports
SOC Reports by year
2013
2012
2011
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
Detailed List of SOC reports
Threats*
Other Threats:
Collapse of the roof of a Temple
Inscription on the Danger List
Year: 2003 -2007
Threats to the Site:

The exceptional architectural design of Kathmandu, Patan and Bhaktapur is gradually disappearing due to uncontrolled urban development.


* : 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.