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

Taj Mahal

India
Factors affecting the property in 2013*
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’) (project suspended by the Indian authorities in 2004)
  • Tourist access road (issue resolved)
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 2013

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: requests for the property until 2013
Requests approved: 2 (from 1986-1994)
Total amount approved : 35,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2013**

2004: Joint World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2013

On 1 February 2013, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report that addresses the progress made in the implementation of Decision 35 COM 7B.67 made by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session. The State Party reports that the development of an Integrated Management Plan for World Heritage properties of Taj Mahal and Agra Fort is in progress and that consultation process was initiated with the State Government, Department of Tourism and Advisory Committee for World Heritage Matters (Ministry of Culture), in order to assess the complex management issues. It further reports that a Management Plan for Fatehpur Sikri is under preparation by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).

Moreover, the State Party has explained that the Door Frame Metal Detectors and barricaded queue arrangements at the Eastern and Western gates of the Taj Mahal are temporary and will be replaced in due course. The State Party confirms that the new bridge across the river Yamuna mentioned at the 34th session of the Committee (2010) has been constructed at 2 KM distance from the Taj Mahal property. The State Party has submitted a Visual Impact Assessment of the new Bridge, which clarifies that the bridge is not visible from the property and has hardly any visual impact on the property. The State Party also provides clarifications that the bridge’s impact on traffic and visitor movement is being prepared through an Environmental Impact Assessment commissioned by ASI. Finally, the State Party reports that a museum is being proposed in the Mughal period heritage building at Fatehpur Sikri and, a Heritage Impact Assessment will be carried out and submitted for review. 

Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 2013

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are of the view that the main concerns of the World Heritage Committee for these three properties are being addressed by the State Party and that no further reporting to the World Heritage Committee is currently required. The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies however recommend that the Committee  encourages the State Party to closely monitor the activities at the properties, to provide information concerning boundaries and buffer zones, and to submit to the World Heritage Centre, for review by the Advisory Bodies, copies of the integrated  Management Plan for the three properties, including an overall visitor management strategy which considers traffic management at Taj Mahal and Agra Fort, and the specific Management Plan for Fatehpur Sikri, along with the Heritage Impact Assessment for the proposed new museum.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2013
37 COM 7B.103
Omnibus Decision

 World Heritage Committee,

1.  Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.  Recalling Decisions 34 COM 8B.6, 35 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.63, 35 COM 7B.67, 35 COM 7B.68, 35 COM 7B.69, 35 COM 7B.73, 35 COM 7B.88, 35 COM 7B.94, 35 COM 7B.98, 35 COM 7B.102, 35 COM 7B.106, 35 COM 7B.109, 35 COM 7B.122, 35 COM 7B.127, 35 COM 7B.128, 35 COM 7B.131 and 35 COM 7B.133 , adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively,

3.  Takes note with satisfaction  of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties :

  • Old Town of Lijiang (China)
  • Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)
  • San Augustin Arhcaeological Park (Colombia)
  • Historic Centre of Český Krumlov (Czech Republic)
  • Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape (Hungary)
  • Taj Mahal (India)
  • Agra Fort (India)
  • Fatehpur Sikri (India)
  • Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park (India)
  • Prambanan Temple Compounds (Indonesia)
  • Monte San Giorgio (Italy / Switzerland)
  • Vilnius Historic centre (Lithuania)
  • Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Malaysia)
  • Historic centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco (Mexico)
  • Camino real de Tierra Adentro (Mexico)
  • Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)
  • City of Cuzco (Peru)
  • Churches of Moldavia (Romania)
  • Ensemble of the Ferrapontov Monastery (Russian Federation)
  • Island of Gorée (Senegal)
  • Works of Antoni Gaudi (Spain)

4.  Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;

5.  Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project which may affect the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible commitments are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines .

Draft Decision:         37 COM 7B.103

The World Heritage Committee,

1.         Having examined Document WHC-13/37.COM/7B.Add,

2.         Recalling Decisions 34 COM 8B.6, 35 COM 7B.42, 35 COM 7B.63, 35 COM 7B.67, 35 COM 7B.68, 35 COM 7B.69, 35 COM 7B.73, 35 COM 7B.88, 35 COM 7B.94, 35 COM 7B.98, 35 COM 7B.102, 35 COM 7B.106, 35 COM 7B.109, 35 COM 7B.122, 35 COM 7B.127, 35 COM 7B.128, 35 COM 7B.131 and 35 COM 7B.133,adopted at its 34th (Brasilia, 2010) and 35th (UNESCO, 2011) sessions respectively,

3.         Takes note with satisfaction of the measures taken by the States Parties concerned to address its previous requests to mitigate the threats on the Outstanding Universal Value of the following World Heritage properties :

·                Old Town of Lijiang (China)

·                Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace, Lhasa (China)

·                San Augustin Arhcaeological Park (Colombia)

·                Historic Centre of Český Krumlov (Czech Republic)

·                Tokaj Wine Region Historic Cultural Landscape (Hungary)

·                Taj Mahal (India)

·                Agra Fort (India)

·                Fatehpur Sikri (India)

·                Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park (India)

·                Prambanan Temple Compounds (Indonesia)

·                Monte San Giorgio (Italy / Switzerland)

·                Vilnius Historic centre (Lithuania)

·                Melaka and George Town, Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca (Malaysia)

·                Historic centre of Mexico City and Xochimilco (Mexico)

·                Camino real de Tierra Adentro (Mexico)

·                Lines and Geoglyphs of Nasca and Pampas de Jumana (Peru)

·                City of Cuzco (Peru)

·                Churches of Moldavia (Romania)

·                Ensemble of the Ferrapontov Monastery (Russian Federation)

·                Island of Gorée (Senegal)

·                Works of Antoni Gaudi (Spain)

4.         Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;

5.         Reminds the States Parties concerned to inform the World Heritage Centre in due course about any major development project that may negatively impact the Outstanding Universal Value of a property, before any irreversible commitments are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.

 

Report year: 2013
India
Date of Inscription: 1983
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (i)
Documents examined by the Committee
arrow_circle_right 37COM (2013)
Exports

* : 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.


top