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

Bam and its Cultural Landscape

Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Factors affecting the property in 2015*
Factors* affecting the property identified in previous reports
  • Lack of a comprehensive management plan; (issue resolved)
  • The boundaries of the property inscribed on an emergency basis were not aligned with the written text of the original Nomination File; (issue resolved)
  • Development pressure related to the post-disaster reconstruction process
Threats for which the property was inscribed on the List of World Heritage in Danger
  • Severe damage to the property caused by the earthquake in December 2003;
  • Development pressures related to the post-disaster reconstruction process.
Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger

Adopted see page https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1288

Corrective Measures for the property

Adopted see pagehttps://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1288

Timeframe for the implementation of the corrective measures
In progress
UNESCO Extra-Budgetary Funds until 2015

Total amount granted: USD 568,000 (2004-2007) from the UNESCO Japan Funds-in-Trust; USD 136, 985 (2005-2010) from the UNESCO Italy Funds-in-Trust; USD 20,000 (2004) from the World Bank Italian Trust Funds’; USD 50,000 (2004) Emergency Assistance under the World Heritage Fund.

International Assistance: requests for the property until 2015
Requests approved: 1 (from 2004-2004)
Total amount approved : 50,000 USD
Missions to the property until 2015**

Since January 2004: several UNESCO missions; October 2011: Joint World Heritage Centre/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission. 

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2015

On 18 March 2015, the State Party submitted a detailed state of conservation report, which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1208/documents/ and addressed the progress made in the implementation of the World Heritage Committee Decision 37 COM 7A.31, adopted at its 37th session (Phnom Penh, 2013).

At the same session, the Committee commended the efforts made by the State Party to meet the Desired state of conservation for the removal of the property from the List of World Heritage in danger (DSOCR), and decided to remove the property from the List of World Heritage in Danger.  However, considering that the property remained vulnerable, the Committee recommended the State Party to pay attention to the following matters:

  • Revise the existing Management Plan to include visitor management component and action plans with timeframes and adequate resources for implementation;
  • Control illegal construction and ensure effective protection of the buffer zone through the development and adoption of regulatory measures,
  • Achieve consistency in restoration through the development guidelines and criteria for interventions to ensure a balanced approach to conservation that sustains the conditions of authenticity and integrity of the property,
  • Ensure continuing site security with the involvement of the local authorities and communities.

The State Party, in its report, has provided details of progress made on all four items.  The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies are of the view that the state of conservation of the property is currently being adequately addressed by the State Party and no further reporting is required in the short term. The State Party is encouraged to continue with the implementation of all relevant measures and plans requested by the Committee, defining appropriate degrees of intervention for each element of the property, in order to ensure an appropriate state of conservation and to prevent threats from affecting its Outstanding Universal Value.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2015
39 COM 7B.93
Omnibus Decisions

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC-15/39.COM/7B.Add,
  2. 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:
  • Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Iran, Islamic Republic of),
  • Rio de Janeiro, Carioca Landscapes between the Mountain and the Sea (Brazil);
  1. Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;
  2. 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 decisions are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.
Draft Decision: 39 COM 7B.93

The World Heritage Committee,

  1. Having examined Document WHC-15/39.COM/7B.Add,
  2. Takes note with satisfactionof 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 :
    1. Bam and its Cultural Landscape (Iran, Islamic Republic of),
    2. Rio de Janeiro, Carioca Landscapes between the Mountain and the Sea (Brazil);
  3. Encourages the States Parties concerned to pursue their efforts to ensure the conservation of World Heritage properties;
  4. 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 decisions are made, in line with Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines.
Report year: 2015
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Date of Inscription: 2004
Category: Cultural
Criteria: (ii)(iii)(iv)(v)
Danger List (dates): 2004-2013
Documents examined by the Committee
SOC Report by the State Party
Report (2015) .pdf
arrow_circle_right 39COM (2015)
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