State of Conservation (SOC)
Group of Monuments at Hampi
Factors affecting the property in 2005*
- Commercial development
- Ground transport infrastructure
- Impacts of tourism / visitor / recreation
- Legal framework
- Management systems/ management plan
- Other Threats:
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Lack of management mechanism; lack of building and land-use regulations; rural poverty; tourism development pressures.
International Assistance granted to the property until 2005
Requests Approved: 0
Total Amount Ap proved: 92,370USD
|2003||Emergency assistance to elaborate a management plan for Hampi ...||75,000 USD|
Study trip of Indian site management authorities of Hampi W H ...
Reapproval: 09 Apr, 2002 (n°1522 - 17,370 USD)
Missions to the property until 2005**
UNESCO experts mission (June 2004)
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2005
The World Heritage Centre received a progress report from the State Party on 29 January 2005.
Following the recommendations of UNESCO expert missions in 2002 and 2003, the construction of the Anegundi suspensioned bridge, which had caused the inscription of the site on the World Heritage List in Danger, was halted. At the end of 2004, the State Party had apparently completed the by-pass road to prevent heavy traffic from entering the core area of the property, which had been indicated by the Committee as the precondition for the resumption of the works on the bridge. At present, the State Party is preparing the traffic regulations and final designs for the landing of the bridge and the erection of barriers to deter heavy traffic from the core area of the site, as requested by the World Heritage Centre to allow the completion of the bridge. Another foot-bridge was dismantled in 2004.
The preparation of an integrated site-management plan for the property is under way, with support from the World Heritage Fund. The State Party has made efforts to establish a serious dialogue with stakeholders at all levels, notably at the first Stakeholders Workshop held in June 2004 with assistance from the World Heritage Centre, which brought forth significant insights concerning the values of the important cultural landscape and long term management requirements. A document containing an outline of the Management Plan, prepared by the University of New Delhi, School of Planning and Architecture, has been received by the Centre as part of its contract with the Archaeological Survey of India. The Centre provided its comments by letter dated 11 April 2005.
These comments drew the attention of the State Party to the need to re-orient the scope and structure of the Management Plan, currently conceived as a study on the possible ideal management of the property rather than as the description of an actual system operating on the ground. In this respect, ICOMOS emphasized in particular the need to develop any Management Plan in close consultation with the authority charged with its implementation and recalled that a clear distinction should be made between the operations that the designated Management Authority can implement, monitor and control, and the overall management system (including legal and planning frameworks) in which the Management Authority functions. Now, such authority in Hampi (the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority) has apparently just been legally established in March 2005, and did not appear to have taken part in the elaboration of the draft management Plan.
ICOMOS further comments that a Management Plan should ensure protective response to the World Heritage values recognized at the time of the inscription of the properties, and recommends that any changes to the understanding of the property (value as a cultural landscape, re-thought criteria, new statement of Outstanding Universal Value, redefinition of boundaries, etc) be brought forward by the State Party for review by the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Committee at the earliest opportunity.
In the framework of the project implemented with funds from the World Heritage Fund, a review meeting shall be organized around the end of July 2005 in Hampi. This will provide an excellent opportunity to discuss the above issues and bring forward the preparation of an effective Management Plan for the property. In addition, a UNESCO expert technical mission is foreseen in late May 2005 in order to undertake, in cooperation with the State Party and the Management Plan team, a technical capacity-building of local experts on the methodology of heritage inventorying and development of building regulations.
The construction of a large commercial complex and traffic interchange node, adjacent to the core area of the property, had also been halted since June 2004 following the recommendations of a UNESCO mission. The World Heritage Centre has corresponded closely with the State Party in an effort to revise the plan of the structure and minimize its impact on the integrity of the landscape. The State Party has indeed modified the plan and submitted a revised, less intrusive version of the complex, which has been scaled back close to 50% of its original size. At the same time, the State party has requested the consent of the Centre for the resumption of the works, taking into account the need for alleviating the pressure caused by commercial activities near the Temple, preventing traffic from entering the core area of the property as well as the legal and financial commitments made with the contractor in charge of the project.
While recognizing the great efforts made by the State Party to respond to the criticisms on this proposed commercial complex, ICOMOS believes that this project should not proceed until the Management Plan is completed and the fit of this project within the provisions of the completed plan are fully and properly assessed. Indeed, the completion of the Management Plan and the establishment of effective control on the development within the property should be seen as the benchmark against which to measure the progress made by the State Party in removing the potential threats that had justified the inscription of the property on the World heritage List in Danger.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2005
Group of Monuments at Hampi (India)
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7A,
2. Recalling its Decision 28 COM 15A.24, adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),
3. Commends the State Party of India for the great efforts made in response to the recommendations of the various UNESCO missions and advice from the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, and notably for having established a management authority for the property;
4. Requests the State Party to submit for examination of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies the required documentation for the resumption of the Anegundi Bridge, notably the traffic regulations on the bypass road and the erection of traffic barriers banning heavy vehicles within the core area of the property;
5. Invites the State Party to appropriately reassess the construction of the commercial complex while the management plan is finalized and fully operational;
6. Requests the State Party to continue the efforts to develop a management plan for the entire property, based on the Statement of the outstanding universal value and taking into account the comments from the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies;7. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2006, the final draft of the management plan together with a progress report on the state of conservation of the property, for examination by the Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006);
8. Decides to consider the possible removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger upon evaluation of the content of the abovementioned progress report at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006)9. Decides to retain Group of Monuments at Hampi (India) on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Draft Decision: 29 COM 7A.22
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7A,
2. Recallingits Decision 28 COM 15A.24, adopted at its 28th session (Suzhou, 2004),
3. Commends the State Party for the great efforts made in response to the recommendations of the various UNESCO missions and advice from the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies, and notably for having established a management authority for the property;
4. Requests the State party to submit for examination of the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies the required documentationfor the resumption of the Anegundi Bridge, notably the traffic regulations on the by-pass road and the erection of traffic barriers banning heavy vehicles within the core area of the property;
5. Invites the State Party to consider the possibility of withholding the construction of the commercial complex until the Management Plan is finalized and fully operational;
6. Requests the State Party to continue the efforts to develop a Management Plan for the entire property, based on the Statement of the Outstanding Universal Value and taking into account the comments from the Advisory Bodies and the World Heritage Centre;
7. Further requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2006, the final draft of the Management Plan together with a progress report on the state of conservation of the property, for examination by the Committee at its 30th session in 2006;
8. Decides to consider the possible removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger upon evaluation of the content of the above-mentioned progress report at its 30th session in 2006
9. Decides to retain the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
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”).