State of Conservation (SOC)
Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (2004)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds
International Assistance granted to the property
Total Amount Ap proved:40,000USD
|2002||Emergency Technical-Co-operation for safeguarding measures at ...||0 USD|
|2001||Brick Conservation of the Alcove Remains of the Maya Devi Temple ...||20,000 USD|
|2000||Support for the Organization of an International Scientific ...||20,000 USD|
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 development pressures include pilgrimage activities.
Current conservation issues
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.
Analysis and Conclusion
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
Link to the decision
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.
View inscribed site documents, nomination file, reports, decisions, ...
SOC Reports2014 2012 2011 2009 2008 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999
Detailed List of SOC reports
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”).