Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha
Factors affecting the property in 2003*
- Management activities
- Management systems/ management plan
- Ritual / spiritual / religious and associative uses
- Water (rain/water table)
- Other Threats:
Extremely harsh natural environment; Improve the drainage for the Temple
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
- Construction of concrete foundations at the Maya Devi Temple site in December 1998
- Need for a site conservation plan
- Extremely harsh natural environment
- Need for a sustainable drainage mechanism to prevent further degradation of the archaeological deposits
- Usage of the pilgrimage property
International Assistance: requests for the property until 2003
Total amount approved : 40,000 USD
|2001||Brick Conservation of the Alcove Remains of the Maya ... (Approved)||20,000 USD|
|2000||Support for the Organization of an International ... (Approved)||20,000 USD|
Missions to the property until 2003**
October 1999: World Heritage Centre mission; July and September 2001: 2 technical expert misisons; June-July 2002: UNESCO reactive monitoring mission
Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2003
At its 26th session, the Committee requested the Government of Nepal to provide information concerning the existing conservation codes applicable to this property and management mechanisms that ensure the protection of the property, and to submit a report on the state of conservation of the site by 1 February 2003. Neither the legal and management information nor the report had been submitted to the Centre as of 30 April 2003. The Centre reminded the Permanent Delegation on 30 April 2003, requesting further information to be presented to the Committee.
Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2003
27 COM 7B.53
Lumbini, the Birthplace of the Lord Buddha (Nepal)
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Recalling decision 26 COM 21(b) 62 taken by the Committee at its 26th session in 2002,;
2. Notes with regret that the report on the state of conservation requested by the Committee from the State Party was not received in time for the examination by the Committee at its 27th session in 2003;
3. Regrets that the construction of the new Maya Devi Temple has been completed in spite of the grave concerns expressed by the Committee at its 26th session;
4. Reiterates its request to the State Party to provide information concerning the management mechanisms which ensure the protection of the World Heritage value of the property;
5. Requests the World Heritage Centre to organize a joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS mission to assess the impact of the newly constructed Maya Devi Temple on the World Heritage value of the property as a whole;
6. Decides to examine the findings of this assessment mission at its 28th session in 2004;
7. Requests that a report on the state of conservation of the property be submitted by the State Party to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2004 in order that the World Heritage Committee can examine the state of conservation of the property at its 28th session in 2004.
Draft Decision: 27 COM 7 (b) 53
The World Heritage Committee,
1. Having examined the report on the state of conservation of the property and the new information provided by the WH Centre and the State Party;
2. Notes that the construction of the new Maya Devi Temple was completed;
3. Reiterates its request to the State Party to provide information concerning the management mechanisms which ensure the protection of the WH values of the property;
4. Requests that a report on the state of conservation of the property be submitted by 1 February 2004 for examination at its 28th session in June 2004.
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”).