Rangiri Dambulla Cave Temple
Factors affecting the property in 1997*
- Legal framework
- Management activities
- Management systems/ management plan
International Assistance: requests for the property until 1997
Total amount approved : 3,333 USD
|1997||Technical cooperation for 6 inscribed cultural sites (Approved)||3,333 USD|
Missions to the property until 1997**
November-December 1994: ICOMOS mission to Sri Lanka
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 1997
ICOMOS will present the final results of its monitoring mission to Sri Lanka.
Analysis and Conclusion by World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies in 1997
The Bureau may wish to examine information that will be provided at the time of its session and take appropriate action thereupon.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 1997
21 COM VII.C.55
Reports on the state of conservation of cultural properties noted by the Committee
VII.55 The Committee noted the decisions of the twenty-first extraordinary session of the Bureau on the following cultural properties as reflected in the report of the Bureau session, Working Documents WHC-97/CONF.208/4B Section III.C.c):
Joya de Ceren Archaeological Site (El Salvador)
Le Canal du Midi (France)
Mont-Saint-Michel and its Bay (France)
Ashanti Traditional Buildings (Ghana)
Maya Site of Copan (Honduras)
Agra Fort, Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri (India)
Quseir Amra (Jordan)
Town of Luang Prabang (Lao People's Democratic Republic)
Pre-Hispanic City of Teotihuacan (Mexico)
Ilha de Mozambique (Mozambique)
Baroque Churches of the Philippines (Philippines)
Old Town of Segovia and its Aqueduct (Spain)
Cultural World Heritage sites in Sri Lanka
Ancient City of Damascus (Syrian Arab Republic)
Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey)
Itchan Kala, Historic Centre of Bukhara (Uzbekistan)
Shibam and Zabid (Yemen).
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”).