Take advantage of the search to browse through the World Heritage Centre information.

Capacity Building
Credibility of the World Heritage ...
Inscriptions on the World Heritage ...
International Assistance
List of World Heritage in Danger
Operational Guidelines
Outstanding Universal Value
Periodic Reporting
Reinforced Monitoring
Tentative Lists
Working methods and tools
World Heritage Convention

2029 27 GA
2027 26 GA
2025 25 GA
2025 47 COM
2024 46 COM
2023 24 GA
2023 45 COM
2023 18 EXT.COM
2022 17 EXT.COM
2021 16 EXT.COM
2021 23 GA
2021 44 COM
2021 15 EXT.COM
2020 14 EXT.COM
2019 13 EXT.COM
2019 22 GA
2019 43 COM
2018 42 COM
2017 12 EXT.COM
2017 21 GA
2017 41 COM
2016 40 COM
2015 11 EXT.COM
2015 20 GA
2015 39 COM
2014 1 EXT.GA
2014 38 COM
2013 19 GA
2013 37 COM
2012 36 COM
2011 10 EXT.COM
2011 18 GA
2011 35 COM
2010 34 COM
2010 9 EXT.COM
2009 17 GA
2009 33 COM
2008 32 COM
2007 16 GA
2007 8 EXT.COM
2007 31 COM
2006 30 COM
2005 15 GA
2005 29 COM
2005 29 BUR
2004 7 EXT.COM
2004 7 EXT.BUR
2004 28 COM
2004 28 BUR
2003 14 GA
2003 27 COM
2003 27 BUR
2003 6 EXT.COM
2002 26 COM
2002 26 BUR
2001 25 COM
2001 25 EXT.BUR
2001 5 EXT.COM
2001 13 GA
2001 25 BUR
2000 24 COM
2000 24 EXT.BUR
2000 24 BUR(SPE)
2000 24 BUR
1999 23 COM
1999 23 EXT.BUR
1999 4 EXT.COM
1999 12 GA
1999 3 EXT.COM
1999 23 BUR
1998 22 COM
1998 22 EXT.BUR
1998 22 BUR
1997 21 COM
1997 21 EXT.BUR
1997 2 EXT.COM
1997 11 GA
1997 21 BUR
1996 20 COM
1996 20 EXT.BUR
1996 20 BUR
1995 19 COM
1995 19 EXT.BUR
1995 10 GA
1995 19 BUR
1994 18 COM
1994 18 EXT.BUR
1994 18 BUR
1993 17 COM
1993 17 EXT.BUR
1993 9 GA
1993 17 BUR
1992 16 COM
1992 16 BUR
1991 15 COM
1991 8 GA
1991 15 BUR
1990 14 COM
1990 14 BUR
1989 13 COM
1989 7 GA
1989 13 BUR
1988 12 COM
1988 12 BUR
1987 11 COM
1987 6 GA
1987 11 BUR
1986 10 COM
1986 10 BUR
1985 9 COM
1985 5 GA
1985 9 BUR
1984 8 COM
1984 8 BUR
1983 7 COM
1983 4 GA
1983 7 BUR
1982 6 COM
1982 6 BUR
1981 5 COM
1981 1 EXT.COM
1981 5 BUR
1980 3 GA
1980 4 COM
1980 4 BUR
1979 3 COM
1979 3 BUR
1979 2 BUR
1978 2 GA
1978 2 COM
1978 1 BUR
1977 1 COM
1976 1 GA

Decision 23 COM X.B.42
SOC: Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)

X.42 Kathmandu Valley (Nepal)

The Secretariat, in reporting on the discussions during the twenty-third extraordinary session of the Bureau and its recommendations, reminded the Committee that the Kathmandu Valley inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1979 is composed of seven Monument Zones. While these zones also contain builtup areas composed of traditional buildings, the boundaries of the protected areas were defined on the basis of a monumental vision, rather than with the objective of protecting a larger urban heritage. Thus, given the relatively limited number of traditional buildings in the World Heritage area, their protection is even more important in forming the essential setting within each Monument Zone. The Committee noted that in the case of Bauddhanath Monument Zone, there were approximately 88 historic buildings surrounding the stupa in 1979 that provided the setting, both physical and spiritual, of this important site of pilgrimage. In 1993 at the time of the UNESCO-ICOMOS Joint Mission, there remained 27, and despite concerted efforts in conserving the site with substantive support from the international community, only 15 remained in 1998.

During the discussions, the Committee noted that inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger has been deferred many times, in order to provide more time to apply conservation measures in accordance with the 16 Recommendations of 1993, and the 55 Recommendations and a Time-Bound Action Plan of Corrective Measures of 1998, officially adopted by HMG of Nepal. The Committee, although noting that periodic reports, submitted either by the State Party or the World Heritage Centre, examined by each session of the Bureau and Committee since 1993, demonstrated the efforts being made by the State Party, it was obliged to note the deterioration of the site in its ensemble.

ICCROM congratulated the State Party for its continuing efforts to strengthen protection of the site over the last six years, but stated that it remained deeply concerned over the apparent and increasing loss of the authentic historic fabrics of the site, which it recalled, was the reason that prompted the 1993 UNESCOICOMOS Joint Mission to recommend inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger. The Representative of ICCROM stated that if the Committee is to support the recommendation of the Bureau to send a High Level Mission, the mandate of the mission should focus on:

- clarifying to the authorities at the highest level, the purpose of inscribing a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger;

- defining more precisely the conditions to be met to warrant eventual inscription on the List of World Heritage in Danger in the Committee's deliberations in year 2000;

- giving further attention to measures which can address the root causes of the demolitions of the vernacular fabrics of the Monument Zones;

- giving attention to establishing base-line data for continuing documentation of the historic buildings.

The advice given by ICCROM was supported by the Delegate of Thailand. To mitigate the real danger threatening this site, the Delegate of Hungary underlined the importance of co-operation between States Parties for enhanced urban heritage management, and in this regard, invited Nepal to participate at the Integrated Urban Conservation Training Workshop and Seminar for Central European Historic City Managers which Hungary planned to organize in 2000.

The Committee underlined that, while it had deferred inscription of the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger until its next session, it recognized the serious loss of the authentic urban fabrics detected within the site over the past years. Several members of the Bureau had been willing to inscribe the site on the List of World Heritage in Danger right away, and it was only after a working group that the Bureau had deferred the inscription. It stressed that the gravity of the situation should not be underestimated. Moreover, the Committee underscored that inscription of a site on the List of World Heritage in Danger should not be considered as an exercise of black-listing sites, but understood to serve as a conservation tool and as part of a process to draw international technical assistance and to rally the necessary political will and public support at the national level in favour of conservation.

The Observer of HMG of Nepal expressed his Government's gratitude for the Committee's keen interest in the protection of the site, as well as for the professional assistance provided over the years by the advisory bodies and the World Heritage Centre. He reported on the Government's efforts made in implementing the 55 Recommendations and the Time-Bound Action Plan for Corrective Measures adopted by HMG of Nepal, but stressed the difficulties faced by his Government in controlling damage in the Monument Zones. He therefore requested the Committee to consider prolonging the deadlines for implementing the Time- Bound Action Plan of Corrective Measures. The Observer informed the Committee that the Prime Minister, aware of the need for concerted national efforts beyond those being made by the Department of Archaeology, had instructed the relevant Ministries to take necessary action for enhancing the management of the site. The Observer stated that although Kathmandu Valley is a Nepalese World Heritage site, the responsibility to ensure its integrity and authenticity is also that of the international community at large and the Committee. Finally, he assured the Committee that the HMG of Nepal would welcome the High Level Mission, composed of the Chairperson of the Committee, the Director of the World Heritage Centre and international experts selected by ICOMOS.

The Committee, in conclusion, recalled the reports of the twenty-third ordinary and extraordinary session of the Bureau, and adopted the following:

"The Committee examined the state of conservation reports presented in WHC-99/CONF-209/INF.17A,B,C,D, and expressed deep concern over the serious degree of uncontrolled change and deterioration of the authenticity and integrity of the Monument Zones placed under the protection of the World Heritage Convention. It noted with appreciation that the State Party had made every effort to implement the 16 Recommendations of the 1993 UNESCO-ICOMOS Joint Mission, as well as the 55 Recommendations of the 1998 UNESCO-ICOMOS-HMG of Nepal Joint Mission and the Time- Bound Action Plan for Corrective Measures.

The Committee requested HMG of Nepal to continue making all possible efforts to protect the remaining authentic historic urban fabric within the Kathmandu Valley site. The Committee requested the Secretariat and the Advisory Bodies to continue to assist the State Party as appropriate and to the extent possible: in strengthening its capacity in controlling development, retaining historic buildings in-situ, and in correcting illegal construction and alteration of historic buildings within the Kathmandu Valley site.

The Committee decided to defer inscription of the Kathmandu Valley site on the List of World Heritage in Danger again, until the next session of the Committee.

Moreover, in view of the fact that the demolition and new construction or alterations of historic buildings within the Kathmandu Valley have persisted in spite of the concerted international and national efforts, resulting in the loss or continuous and gradual deterioration of materials, structure, ornamental features, and architectural coherence making the essential settings of the Monument Zones as well as in their authentic characters, the Committee requested a High Level Mission to be undertaken to hold discussions with representatives of HMG of Nepal in early 2000. This High Level Mission would be composed of the Chairperson of the World Heritage Committee or a representative of the Committee members, a senior staff of the World Heritage Centre, and two eminent international experts selected by ICOMOS. The findings of the mission would be reported the next sessions of the Bureau and Committee, in 2000."

Decision Code
23 COM X.B.42
States Parties 1
Properties 1
State of conservation reports
1999 Kathmandu Valley