Mountain Railways of India

• Management Systems/Management Plan (Lack of an adapted management plan; Lack of a heritage conservation unit; Absence of a Buffer Zone)

Total amount provided: USD 533,332 via a self-benefiting Funds-in-Trust project by the Indian Railways, set up at the UNESCO Office in New Delhi for the establishment of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Framework (2021)

On 1 December 2022, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/944/documents, and presents progress with several conservation issues addressed by the Committee at its previous sessions, as follows:

• The report covers the state of conservation of all three components of the property: the Darjeeling Himalayan Railway (DHR), the Nilgiri Mountain Railway (NMR), and the Kalka Shimla Railway (KSR);
• All three railways:
  • are equipped with engineers, multi-disciplinary management units and heritage committees at zonal level;
  • have consultation mechanisms in place with community stakeholders as part of decision-making and implementation processes. Encroachment and rubbish issues within the property and buffer zones have been or are being managed;
  • have made substantial investments in maintaining authentic and new locomotives and rolling stock, and on the NMR new and existing locomotives are being converted from coal- or oil-fired operation to diesel-fired operation beginning in 2022;
  • have baseline inventories of relevant plans, documents and moveable objects. KSR’s digitised documentation is available on the website. Heritage museums are being developed or upgraded for the NMR, and museums exist for the other two railways;
  • indicate that the property boundaries have been defined and the mapping documentation submitted to the World Heritage Centre, as have the buffer zone definition for the DHR and the KSR, for which cartographic documentation is still being prepared. The NMR’s buffer zone is still being negotiated, and the final boundaries will be submitted with the Conservation Management Plan;
• A Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) for the DHR has been submitted to the Railway Board. A separate CCMP is being developed for the other two components and will be submitted to the Railway Board when completed. Each of the component railways provides assurances that their operations are guided by specific conservation guidelines. So far, no CCMPs nor guidelines have been submitted to the World Heritage Centre;
• Restoration works of the Ghum and Darjeeling railways stations along the DHR are not considered a ‘major restoration and new construction’ by the State Party, but rather minor activities with no impact on Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). Minor track safety works are also being undertaken.

Two letters have been sent to India on 31 August 2021 and 24 June 2022, relaying third-party information about the DHR privatization process, which reportedly does not ensure that specific provisions are included in contract(s) with private entities to safeguard the heritage values, including a commitment on the part of the companies to adhere to the implementation of the World Heritage Committee’s decisions. No response has been received from the State Party at the time of drafting this report.

The State Party’s investment in the maintenance of steam engines and historic rolling stock, and in one case the construction of new engines, is to be commended. The actions taken on the NMR to convert oil-fired engines into diesel-fired engines is potentially a major step towards making the long-term conservation of steam railways environmentally sustainable and is also to be commended.

The report indicates that all railways have taken action to document important archives and objects relating to the railways, which is welcome. The development of accessible online presentation materials for each railway is also welcome, and the State Party should be encouraged to continue its actions to conserve the documentary and artefactual components of the railways and make them accessible to the public.

The three railways have outlined their management systems for heritage conservation, but the degree to which professional heritage expertise is actively involved within the systems remains difficult to determine. The State Party should again be requested to ensure that appropriate heritage expertise is involved in the development of conservation and management guidelines for heritage assets and is directly involved in decision making relating to key issues and assets.

The CCMPs for all components are in varying stages of development, and the State Party should be requested again to finalise these management plans and submit them to the World Heritage Centre for review by the Advisory Bodies. They should include the conservation guidelines said to be currently used.

While the State Party’s report does not refer to the privatisation of the DHR, the World Heritage Centre has sought comment on this reported development. If privatisation is to occur, the State Party should be urged to clarify how protection of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) and compliance with the Committee’s decisions will be achieved through contractual agreement with private entities, and what additional provisions might be required in the CCMP to support this change.

The mapping of property and buffer zone boundaries has not been completed for some components. The State Party should be requested to complete the boundary definition and submit the outcomes to the World Heritage Centre for consideration by the Committee and, upon positive review, endorsement by the relevant management agencies.

The State Party considers that the proposed restoration of the railway stations at Ghum and Darjeeling on the DHR does not constitute ‘major restoration and new construction’ and is therefore not subject to the provisions of Paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines. However, the 2021 state of conservation report found it regrettable that the modernisation of two stations on the KSR was carried out without any apparent input from heritage experts nor consideration of the obligations under Paragraph 172. Therefore, the Committee may wish to urge the State Party to rely on inputs from heritage specialists to ensure the protection of OUV at the Ghum and Darjeeling railway stations, including in the framework of Paragraph 172.

In summary, a number of the recommendations of the 2019 joint Reactive Monitoring mission have not yet been consistently acted upon. In the absence of CCMPs in place for all three railways, and without being able to review the management guidelines said to be in place, it is difficult to gauge the quality and consistency of heritage protection and management across the three components of the property. The lack of clear involvement of heritage experts in decision-making processes in most cases is concerning, especially as the programmes for staff training in heritage management and the existence or application of guidelines for the conservation of railway stations are inconsistent across the property.