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

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








2024 47 COM
2023 24 GA
2023 46 COM
2022 45 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 40 COM 7B.41
Kathmandu Valley (Nepal) (C121bis)

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC/16/40.COM/7B.Add,
  2. Recalling Decision 39 COM 7B.69, adopted at its 39th session (Bonn, 2015),
  3. Acknowledges the efforts of the Department of Archaeology, with the support of UNESCO and various donors and agencies, to respond to the effects of the April/May 2015 earthquakes;
  4. Notes that all seven monument zones have suffered extensive damage from the earthquakes of April-May 2015, which resulted in adverse impacts on attributes, authenticity, integrity and management of the property and put its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) at risk;
  5. Also notes that earthquakes are a regular feature of the Kathmandu Valley, and that the “cyclical renewal” carried out by craftspeople, using traditional processes and materials, has sustained the heritage values of the property over time;
  6. Considers that a renewal process could help restore some of the attributes affected by the earthquake, thereby reducing the impact on the OUV, but emphasizes that this work must be based on a review and analysis of precisely what has been damaged and could be recovered, of what has been lost and will need to be replaced by new structures, as well as on a clear understanding of the attributes of OUV for each monument zone and how each has been impacted;
  7. Urges the State Party to develop, in full engagement with local community groups, including traditional Guthis and others, a carefully-designed Recovery Master Plan (RMP) supported by guidelines to identify what attributes of OUV can be recovered, how choices are justified, and how the recovery work will be phased and undertaken. The RMP should facilitate the appropriate use, management and maintenance of the sites, in accordance with the OUV of the property and with other local and national values;
  8. Also urges the State Party to integrate the RMP within an overall socio-economic revitalisation programme for urban communities, to encourage residents and local businesses to engage in the recovery process and to ensure that it delivers wide-ranging social and economic benefits;
  9. Requests the State Party to review the Integrated Management Plan (IMP) for the property, taking into consideration the damage caused by the earthquakes, its impact on the OUV of the property and the provisions of the RMP, and to prepare a plan of action to build capacity through coordination of local and international expertise, training programmes for both heritage principles and master crafts and a scheme to foster long-term sustainability through the provision of reasonable remuneration and long-term employment;
  10. Takes note of the report provided by the 2015 Reactive Monitoring mission and also requests the State Party to implement all its detailed recommendations as appropriate;
  11. Notes with concern the need for a coherent, consistent and coordinated approach by national institutions for adequate response from the State Party in pursuing recovery and reconstruction of the heritage property;
  12. Further notes the dimensions of the recovery task and the potential for the property to be subject to considerable pressure to rebuild within the monument and buffer zones using new approaches and technologies, and to use contractors with inadequate experience and familiarity with traditional materials and local processes, all of which could have considerable adverse impacts on the OUV of the property;
  13. Taking into account all of the above-mentioned potential threats and the ascertained threats to the property’s OUV caused by the immediate impacts of the 2015 earthquakes, further requests the State Party to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS/ICCROM Reactive Monitoring mission to further define corrective measures and to ascertain the progress accomplished by the State Party;
  14. Calls on the international community to continue providing support for both the short-term protection and emergency safeguarding measures and the long-term conservation of the property, which are both necessary to maintain the OUV of the Kathmandu Valley;
  15. Requests furthermore the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, before any irreversible decision is made, detailed information about any major restoration, rehabilitation or reconstruction works foreseen within and in the vicinity of the property, for review by the Advisory Bodies in accordance with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines;
  16. Finally requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2017, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property and the implementation of the above, for examination by the World Heritage Committee at its 41st session in 2017, with a view to considering, in the absence of significant progress, the possible inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
Decision Code
40 COM 7B.41
Themes
Conservation, List of World Heritage in Danger, Reports
States Parties 1
Properties 1
Year
2016
State of conservation reports
2016 Kathmandu Valley
Documents
WHC/16/40.COM/19
Report of the Decisions adopted during the 40th session of the World Heritage Committee (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016)
Context of Decision
WHC-16/40.COM/7B.Add
top