State of Conservation (SOC)
Agra Fort
Taj Mahal
Fatehpur Sikri (2010)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
Total amount provided to the property: USD 158,200 under the UNESCO/Aventis project “Preservation of Taj Mahal and other Monuments in Agra”.
International Assistance granted to the property
Requests Approved: 0
(from1986-1994)
Total Amount Ap proved: 35,000USD
| 1994 | Financial contribution to reduce air pollution in Taj Mahal | 20,000 USD |
| 1986 | Consultants to advise the authorities on the preservation of the ... | 15,000 USD |
Missions**
2004: Joint World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Development project negatively impacting the World Heritage value of the properties of Taj Mahal and Agra Fort (‘Taj Heritage Corridor Project’). The project was suspended by the Indian authorities in 2004.
Corrective Measures
Current conservation issues
No progress report has been received from the State Party, as requested by the Committee at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007).
In August 2009, the World Heritage Centre received written and photographic information concerning the construction of a new bridge over the Yamuna River in the vicinity of the Taj Mahal, which might impact adversely on the Taj Mahal and the Agra Fort World Heritage properties.
In accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, in December 2009 the World Heritage Centre requested the State Party to provide the World Heritage Centre with comments on the information received and, if the project was confirmed, it further requested the State Party to provide to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies, detailed information about the project, together with any impact assessment studies that might have been undertaken. No response has been received from the State Party.
The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies regret that no details have been provided by the State Party on the apparent proposals to construct a rope bridge near to the Taj Mahal and consider that information on whether this project is still being considered, and if so its potential impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, need to be submitted as a matter of urgency to the World Heritage Centre, for review by the Advisory Bodies, before any commitment is made, in line with paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.
The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies also regret that no further information has been received from the State Party on progress with integrated management plans for the Taj Mahal and Agra Fort, and for Fatehpur Sikri, nor has information on boundaries for all three properties been submitted, in connection with the retrospective inventory.
Conclusion
Decision
34COM7B.68
Link to the decision
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add,
2. Recalling Decision 31 COM 7B.80, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),
3. Regrets that the State Party did not submit a progress report on management and boundaries as previously requested by the World Heritage Committee;
4. Encourages the State Party to continue progress in the development of an integrated management plan for the Taj Mahal and the Agra Fort, and for Fatehpur Sikri, and of a Visitors Facilitation Centre, and requests it to submit the plans when completed to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies;
5. Reiterates its request to the State Party to provide the information to the World Heritage Centre concerning the boundaries and area of the three World Heritage properties in the Agra District, as requested by the World Heritage Centre within the framework of the Retrospective Inventory project in 2006;
6. Also requests the State Party to provide urgently detailed information, and any associated impact assessment studies that have been undertaken, on the proposed construction of a new bridge over the Yamuna River in the vicinity of the Taj Mahal, and for any other development proposals, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines before any commitment has been made;
7. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2011, a progress report on all of the above for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.
Draft Decision: 34 COM 7B.68
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-10/34.COM/7B.Add,
2. Recalling Decision 31 COM 7B.80, adopted at its 31st session (Christchurch, 2007),
3. Regrets that the State Party did not submit a progress report on management and boundaries as previously requested by the World Heritage Committee;
4. Encourages the State Party to continueprogress in the development of an integrated management plan for the Taj Mahal and the Agra Fort, and for Fatehpur Sikri, and of a Visitors Facilitation Centre, and requests that it to submit the plans when completed to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies;
5. Reiterates its requests the State Party to provide the information to the World Heritage Centre concerning the boundaries and area of the three World Heritage properties in the Agra District, as requested by the World Heritage Centre within the framework of the Retrospective Inventory project in 2006;
6. Also requests the State Party to provide urgently detailed information, and any associated impact assessment studies that have been undertaken, on the proposed construction of a new bridge over the Yamuna River in the vicinity of the Taj Mahal, and for any other development proposals, in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines before any commitment has been made;
7. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2011, a progress report on all of the above for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session in 2011.
Taj Mahal
India
Fatehpur Sikri
IndiaExports
Word File Threats*
- Ground transport infrastructure
- Other Threats:
Documents
WHC-10/34.COM/7B.AddOther Documents:
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...SOC ID: 566
* :
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.
