Susa

• Management activities (Insufficient protection measures for archaeological remains and mounds within the buffer zone)
• Management systems/Management Plan (Lack of risk preparedness considerations in the Susa Development Plan and in the management framework of the property)
• Housing, Commercial Development (Urban pressure)
• Water (rain/water table) (Extreme climatic conditions (erosion due to heavy rains))

On 30 November 2019, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1455/documents and provides information on the progress achieved with the implementation of the recommendations adopted by the Committee at its 41st session (Krakow, 2017), as follows:

• The Susa World Heritage Base and the Shush Municipality met to harmonize territorial and urban planning tools with the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). The municipality will deliver an outline of all future planning projects to the Susa World Heritage Base for comments and adjustments by the Base in order to maintain the property’s integrity and authenticity;
• A list of commitments made through inter-institutional agreements is noted, alongside a defined period of implementation to measure their effectiveness. Several development projects in the buffer zone were discontinued due to misalignment with the regulations of the property;
• A Tourism Development Plan for Shush City is under development. It will be expanded and implemented over the next decade. A new archaeological site entrance will be constructed after approval from the Susa World Heritage Base Steering Committee;
• In 2018, an initial draft scheme of short-, medium- and long-term plans was developed as a precursor to a complete Risk Management Plan, with the primary goal of predicting and preventing damage during a crisis;
• In 2018, 360 ha of the property were archaeologically mapped, and the data were published and made available through the property’s documentation centre;
• A plan has been developed and integrated for the reorganisation and physical demarcation of the boundaries of the property;
• The identification of 25 archaeological hills in Shush City for registration on the National Heritage List was initiated, with 40 additional hills to be added in an upcoming phase;
• A survey plan for the protection and restoration of Susa Castle has been prepared following the earthquakes of 2014 and 2017;
• A second phase of the project to document and interpret brick inscriptions was undertaken;
• The upgrade and optimization of storage are ongoing, including upgrades to storage buildings, transfer of objects to secure storage areas, and reorganisation and registration of objects;
• The Susa World Heritage Base is pursuing awareness-raising activities for the general population, local stakeholders and tourists, and inter-university and -institutional cooperation;
• Various emergency measures and infrastructural activities were undertaken, including the removal of excess vegetation, the recoating of architectural remains and the installation of utilities, including CCTV.

The State Party has shown its commitment to improving the state of conservation of the property, in accordance with past Committee decisions. The commitment to conservation is evident through the State Party’s continued efforts in strengthening inter-institutional cooperation, archaeological mapping, on-site conservation of buildings, and storage and cataloguing of artefacts, as well as through the implementation of various emergency measures and infrastructural conservation. Responsible tourism initiatives and awareness-raising activities are ongoing, while expert workshops and university/institutional cooperation further contribute to improving the knowledge base and state of conservation of the property and provide support to the Susa World Heritage Base. The marking of the property boundaries is welcomed, and the design for the new entrance gate to the archaeological zone is of an appropriate scale. It is therefore recommended that the Committee commend the State Party for all its efforts.

However, concerns remain regarding the urban environment of the buffer and landscape zones, and the alignment of existing urban spatial planning measures with the OUV of the property. While much progress has been made, continued monitoring, consultation and adjustments should be undertaken to ensure territorial and urban planning upstream process be guided to preserve the property’s OUV.

The initial draft scheme of short-, medium-, and long-term plans needs to be further developed from a precursor into a complete draft Risk Management Plan in order to facilitate risk preparedness and mitigate impacts from nature- or human-induced disasters. It is recommended that the Committee request the draft Risk Management Plan to be submitted to the World Heritage Centre for review before its final adoption.

Finally, it is noted that the framework for the draft Risk Management Plan for the property does not foresee the review or update of the plan itself. Further measures should also be taken to define inter-institutional management indicators, based not only on specific project outcomes, but also to measure the effectiveness of continued cooperation processes between the stakeholder institutions. It is also recommended that the State Party avail the necessary financial resources and institutional capacity for a review of the Management Framework in the medium term, to accommodate the new insights brought to light by the investigative identification and documentation projects undertaken by the State Party and its partners.