Group of Monuments at Hampi

a) Lack of an operational site management plan;

b) Lack of traffic regulations limiting heavy duty vehicular traffic.

 Total amount provided to the property: Funding under the France-UNESCO Co-operation Agreement for expert missions (2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009) for a total amount of 20,000 Euros.

On 1 February 2010, the State Party submitted a draft Integrated Management Plan (IMP) for the “Hampi World Heritage Area” with two annexes and some maps. However, the State Party did not submit a report on the state of conservation of the property providing information on the progress achieved with regard to the issues raised by the World Heritage Committee in its decision taken at the 33rd session.

The State Party did not either submit a draft Statement of Outstanding Universal Value nor a request for the extension of the boundaries of the property and its buffer zone, as requested by the World Heritage Committee in Decision 33 COM 7B.71.

With regard to the Integrated Management Plan (IMP), the draft submitted by the State Party is an impressive document of over 500 pages, complemented by a “Tourism Development Strategy”, a study on transportation in Hampi, a ”Heritage conservation & development plan for the Anegundi Village”, as well as several annexes and maps. The draft Management Plan is structured around 14 chapters, including consideration for the conservation of the archaeological areas, community development and tourism. It contains also an extensive Action Plan and provisions for monitoring.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies understand that the IMP has not yet been adopted and needs to be finalised by the Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority, in conjunction with the Archaeological Survey of India and other stakeholders.

Whilst revealing a considerable range of aspirations and significant challenges that need to be addressed in the management and future well-being of the property, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider that the draft IMP – a profoundly detailed material - does not make for easy interpretation of what actual managerial, technical, pragmatic and operational actions will be taken to resolve the plethora of issues raised in the property. For ease of working, implementation and monitoring, the relevant recommendations covering the plan period need to be comprehensively prioritised, condensed from the weighty documentation, and set out in a summary of the operational IMP document. The draft IMP, moreover, does not seem to provide details on building regulations applicable for each category of zones within the new proposed boundaries of the property and its buffer zone, as well as the related urban design guidelines, as requested by the Committee. It does not either contain a clear proposal on traffic regulations limiting heavy duty vehicular traffic (requested by the World Heritage Committee by its Decision 32 COM 7B.70).

With regard to the other issues raised by the World Heritage Committee in its Decision 33 COM 7B.71, notably the encouragement to demolish the remaining pillars of the collapsed bridge, the consideration of a new more appropriate location for the bridge, and the concern over illegal constructions and other developments within the areas that are being considered for the possible extension of the property, no information has been provided by the State Party.

The World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies express concern that the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value has not been submitted, that the IMP has not yet been fully adopted, implemented and resourced. They note that the property boundary has now been delineated, significantly larger than the one defining the inscribed property, although no request has been submitted by the State Party to obtain formal approval by the Committee for an extended World Heritage site and buffer zone.

Many of these issues relate to the recommendations of the 2007 mission report. Given the vulnerability of this property from development and the commitment expressed by the State Party when the property was removed from the List of World Heritage in Danger, in 2006, that the IMP would be finalised and fully implemented, the World Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies consider that the decisions taken by the Committee at its 31st, 32nd and 33rd sessions have not yet been fully implemented. These works need to be undertaken with some urgency in order to have in place robust management systems that can address the conservation, protection, development and management challenges.