Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park
Factors affecting the property in 2013*
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
Lack of management structure and management plan (issue resolved)
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2013
Total amount approved : 0 USD
Missions to the property until 2013**
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2013
On 31 January 2013, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report which provides information on progress made in the implementation of Decision 35 COM 7B.68 made by the World Heritage Committee at its 35th session (UNESCO, 2011). The State Party reports on conservation activities carried out at the property and its immediate surroundings from December 2011 to January 2013, as well as on the process of developing an Integrated Management Plan for the property. The State Party has also submitted the completed and adopted Management Plan containing an overall diagnosis of the conservation issues and details of a comprehensive management system, as well as the related legal and institutional tools for its implementation. The Management Plan has been transmitted to ICOMOS 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 concerns of the World Heritage Committee in relation to management have been addressed by the State Party. They therefore consider that no further reporting to the World Heritage Committee is currently required. However, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies recommend that the State Party monitor periodically the state of conservation of the property, by assessing the implementation of the new legal and institutional tools, as well as the implementation of the Management Plan.
Summary of the interventions
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.
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.