Archaeological Site of Nalanda Mahavihara at Nalanda, Bihar

Factors identified at the time of inscription in 2016:

• Management systems / Management Plan (lack of an Integrated Master Plan of Nalanda; need for strengthened approaches to visitor management and interpretation)
• Other (lack of appropriate documentation to establish the authenticity of the property)

On 30 November 2017, the State Party submitted a state of conservation report, which is available at http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1502/documents/ and presents progress with a number of conservation issues addressed by the Committee at its previous sessions as follows:

• Historical research at the property continues: the peripheral mound between the Temple and the main access pathway as well as the Rukmini Sthan mound, which is located approximately 1 km from Nalanda, were documented in 2016-17, while research on Nalanda’s sculptures is in progress and a report on the property’s conservation and management was recently completed;
• A century’s worth of historical excavation drawings has been conserved and digitized;
• Ongoing conservation and consolidation work has been undertaken at the Temple and Monastery sites between 2016 and 2017, while the patching and repairing of different structures has continued and superficial accretions have been chemically removed. The conservation work has been made subtly distinguishable from the original structure;
• The property’s general landscape is being upgraded, including garden development at the Sarai mound area, which will commence shortly, and a new garden layout around Temple sites 12, 13 and 14;
• A Detailed Project Report has been finalized for upgrading and extending the Nalanda Museum in order to enhance the visitors’ experience, notably through interactive displays;
• A Regional Planning Area Authority was created in August 2017 in order to monitor the preparation and implementation of the Integrated Master Plan, which the State Party hopes will be completed in 2018. The agency preparing the Plan has submitted a Preliminary Inception Report, which outlines the methodology and process for the preparation of the Plan and includes a proposal to designate a “Special Area” covering the inscribed property and its buffer zone, and possibly establish Development Control Regulations to regulate land use in the peripheral area;
• No developments or changes in land use have been proposed. The State Party assures that Heritage Impact Assessments (HIAs) will be undertaken for any developments envisaged within the property and its vicinity;
• Methodology and implementation plans for the documentation and conservation of the property continue to be developed on the basis of established norms, including the principle of minimal intervention.

The State Party has made progress on a number of the recommendations made by the Committee at the time of inscription. In particular, useful historical and academic research continues to be carried out; nevertheless, a research programme with a specific focus on establishing the authenticity of the property, along with corresponding documentation of the differentiation of authentic archaeological fabric, would be advantageous. As recommended at the time of inscription in 2016, the Integrated Master Plan should contain appropriate recommendations and approaches for any development plans proposed within or in the vicinity of the property that may have an impact on its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), including authenticity or integrity. The State Party’s reassurance that a HIA will be prepared for any such future development plans is welcomed, as is the State Party’s commitment to continue to develop a methodology and implementation plan for the documentation and conservation of the property.

The State Party has not provided a specific update on the Committee’s request to work out a conservation plan for the excavated remains of the property. A formal conservation plan is an important element in the suite of mechanisms intended to safeguard the OUV and authenticity of a property such as this, and it is therefore recommended that the Committee reiterate its previous request. Furthermore, although the State Party reported on the upgrading and extension of the Nalanda Museum, the State Party has not reported on how it has strengthened approaches to visitor management and interpretation through the preparation and establishment of a visitor management plan, which had also been requested by the Committee at the time of inscription. A reiteration of this request by the Committee is likewise recommended.